Early 2016 Senate Ratings

[Vosem]

Alabama. Safe R.
Alaska. Safe R.
Arizona. Leans R. McCain is most likely out, which means a close race but probably also a narrow Republican victory -- pretty polarized, inelastic state.
Arkansas. Likely R. The state Democratic Party hasn't been exterminated yet like in other parts of the South, and Hillary at the top of the ticket could have powerful coattails. But on the whole, Boozman is pretty safe and has recently become very popular in the Republican Senate Caucus.
California. Safe D.
Colorado. Leans D. Swing state, Republican bench exists, but Republicans will be busy with defense and Bennet will have incumbency.
Connecticut. Safe D.
Florida. Leans R. Whether Rubio goes or not, Democrats will be competitive, but most likely will lose in a leans-R state to a good R candidate. With West this turns into Leans D, but I doubt he'll be the candidate if Rubio leaves.
Georgia. Safe R. Yeah, the state is trending, but Democrats have a very weak bench and Isakson is a strong enough incumbent to avoid this sort of trouble. Plus inelasticity.
Hawaii. Safe D.
Idaho. Safe R.
Illinois. Leans D. An uncontroversial Democratic candidate should be able to put this one away, but the Illinois Democrats are not known for not being controversial (don't like that sentence, too many negatives). Hedging my bets.
Indiana. Likely R. Coats is not a strong incumbent, but the Indiana Democrats don't have much of a bench.
Iowa. Likely R. Obviously Safe if Grassley runs, but I won't believe it till I see it. Tossup without Grassley.
Kansas. Safe R.
Kentucky. Leans R. Whether Paul runs for reelection or not, Democrats have a bench here but the state doesn't like electing Democrats federally. Depends on the top of the ticket, as well.
Louisiana. Safe R.
Maryland. Safe D. Mikulski could retire, but I don't think it'd matter.
Missouri. Leans R. Blunt vs. Nixon is Tossup, maybe even a shade of Tilt D; any other serious Democrat against Blunt is Likely R, verging on Safe. Averaged the two.
Nevada. Tossup. Reid vs. Sandoval is Tossup. Reid against anyone else is Likely D; Sandoval against anyone else is Likely R. Do the math.
New Hampshire. Tossup. Very elastic state. Ayotte seems to be doing OK now in my opinion, but this is a state where both parties seem to have enormous benches and she should receive a credible opponent.
New York. Safe D. I'd probably vote for Schumer myself.
North Carolina. Leans R. Tossup if it's Burr vs. Cooper, Likely R otherwise (though still competitive, Democrats do have a bench).
North Dakota. Safe R. Safe with Hoeven; Leans R if it's an open seat. Decided Hoeven is pretty likely to seek reelection, so Safe R.
Ohio. Leans R. Tossup if it's Portman vs. Cordray; Likely R if it's anyone else.
Oklahoma. Safe R.
Oregon. Safe D. I'd probably vote for Wyden myself as well.
Pennsylvania. Leans R. One of the few races where the matchup can be predicted with a good deal of confidence (Toomey vs. Sestak). And, yeah, in a good D year Sestak should win but otherwise Toomey seems to have impressed his constituents. Still, R Senator in an inelastic leans-D state, don't count out Sestak.
South Carolina. Safe R.
South Dakota. Safe R.
Utah. Safe R.
Vermont. Safe D.
Washington. Safe D. If the GOP didn't beat Murray in a midterm wave, 2016 can't work. She's on my retirement watchlist, but I doubt it'll matter. Republicans could decoy Democrats here, though.
Wisconsin. Tossup. Leans D if it's Johnson vs. Feingold (could be), Tossup if it's Johnson vs. Kind (doubtful), and Leans R if it's Johnson vs. anyone else (most likely). Averaged it out to Tossup.

Might make a map later, might not.

EDIT: And here it is:

To elaborate a bit further, the Republicans' problem isn't that of the Democrats of 2014, who are clearly about to lose several seats, but that they are so overstretched a couple of seats are bound to slip through the cracks and be Democratic victories. And the potential for gains, while there, seems to be even more miserly than the Democratic potential for gains in 2014 (though that might just be distance from the elections talking).

[opebo]

D+5

[Mr. Morden]

Kentucky: Rand Paul (R), Running... Safe R

He says he's running for reelection, yet he also says he's thinking about running for president, even though it's legally impossible for him to do both at the same time.  He hasn't exactly clarified how he plans to deal with that fact.

Yeah, quite confused by that. Could he cancel for file of re-election of Kentucky? If so, its Likely R without him, Safe R with him.

The Kentucky presidential primary and US Senate primary are at the same time.  He can't legally be on the ballot for both, and the filing deadline is in February 2016, very early in the presidential primary process.  So what is Paul going to do?  Run for president until February, and then drop out to run for reelection?  That might work for third tier candidates like Duncan Hunter, who can get away with planning for failure.  But Paul will likely be a top tier candidate, so I can't see him doing that unless his presidential campaign is really struggling.

The one way around it would be if he runs for president in 49 states, but not in Kentucky.  Doesn't put himself on the presidential ballot in Kentucky, but runs for senate there, while running for president everywhere else.  But that would look ridiculous.

(Rubio doesn't have this same problem, because the presidential and senate primaries are separate in Florida, and Rubio wouldn't have to file for reelection until May, when the presidential nominating contest is nearly over.  No GOP presidential nomination contest has remained contested that late since 1976, so he should be able to run for president, see if he wins the nomination, then jump into the senate race if the presidential race doesn't work out.)

[PolitiJunkie]

who are clearly about to lose several seats

All right, slow down tiger. South Dakota is the only seat that's gone and Kentucky and Georgia are on the table. The plausible range is from D+1 to R+6, but realistically, it's gonna fall between R+1 and R+3

[NewYorkExpress]

Jeanne Shaheen (who I think are most likely to take her on)

You think Shaheen will be voted out in 2014?

No, that was supposed to read Gov. Hassan, who I think will win re-election and run... whoops.

[LeBron]

New York- Likely D, Schumer's biggest weakness is a primary, and should a Bill De Blasio take the nomination away, someone along the lines of George Pataki could win in the General. The situation is very unlikely however.

Ohio- Lean D, I think Kasich defeats Portman in a primary, and Democrats will nominate Richard Cordaray. Kasich is a slightly more toxic candidate than Portman, and Clinton at the top of the ticket could help here.

Schumer and Portman will be renominated and reelected. Why do people on this forum underappreciate/understimate Rob Portman so much? There are at least 12 seats Democrats should be focusing on in 2016 before Ohio.

Because Portman's approval rating is just bombshell. He dropped like 16 points after voting against background checks and 10 points after coming out in support of same-sex marriage. Just because the Republicans have held this seat since John Glenn's retirement doesn't mean Portman will soar to re-election especially in a swing-state in a Presidential year. There's almost no way Kasich runs for the seat either because no matter if he loses his Governor's race or not, he has his eyes set on the Presidency.

Ohio right now I would consider a tossup/tilt R, but if Hillary ends up being on the same ballot and the Democrats can get someone like Michael Coleman, Marcia Fudge or Dennis Kucinich to run (Cordray  will decline now that he's with the CFPB), it could be lean D.

You've gotta be fcuking kidding me. You are coming off as barfbag of the left right now.

Here is a ranking of the races in terms of the likelihood of them being Democratic pickups (most likely to least likely)

Wisconsin
Illinois
New Hampshire
Arizona
Florida
Pennsylvania
Missouri
North Carolina
Iowa
Kentucky
Georgia
Ohio
Indiana
Alaska
Louisiana
Arkansas
South Carolina
Kansas
Oklahoma
Idaho
South Dakota
North Dakota
Alabama
Utah

More Likely than Not
Solid Possibility
There's a Chance
Doubtful
Very Unlikely
No Way, José

And for the likelihood of a Republican Pickup

Nevada
Colorado
Washington
Connecticut
Oregon
California
New York
Hawaii
Maryland
Vermont

Perhaps
Not Likely
No Way, José

How do you consider Iowa a solid possibility but Ohio doubtful? Grassley already announced he's running and is almost guaranteed to win re-election despite it being a state that usually leans D. Portman hasn't even announced yet if he'll run for another term, but due to his high unpopularity in Ohio, it really shouldn't matter either way. And I will take back what I said on Kucinich being lean D; he is with Fox News afterall so he wouldn't run anyways. But if any seat has a better chance at flipping to the Democratic Party in 2016, it will be Ohio before Iowa.

I agree on everything else except I think Connecticut should be listed under there as "No Way, Jose" because there's nobody who can beat Blumenthal. Even in the GOP wave, Linda McMahon couldn't even come close to defeating him no matter how much money she put into the race.

[PolitiJunkie]

Jeanne Shaheen (who I think are most likely to take her on)

You think Shaheen will be voted out in 2014?

No, that was supposed to read Gov. Hassan, who I think will win re-election and run... whoops.

Yeah I think there is a very high chance of Hassan running and a very high chance of Hassan winning.

New York- Likely D, Schumer's biggest weakness is a primary, and should a Bill De Blasio take the nomination away, someone along the lines of George Pataki could win in the General. The situation is very unlikely however.

Ohio- Lean D, I think Kasich defeats Portman in a primary, and Democrats will nominate Richard Cordaray. Kasich is a slightly more toxic candidate than Portman, and Clinton at the top of the ticket could help here.

Schumer and Portman will be renominated and reelected. Why do people on this forum underappreciate/understimate Rob Portman so much? There are at least 12 seats Democrats should be focusing on in 2016 before Ohio.

Because Portman's approval rating is just bombshell. He dropped like 16 points after voting against background checks and 10 points after coming out in support of same-sex marriage. Just because the Republicans have held this seat since John Glenn's retirement doesn't mean Portman will soar to re-election especially in a swing-state in a Presidential year. There's almost no way Kasich runs for the seat either because no matter if he loses his Governor's race or not, he has his eyes set on the Presidency.

Ohio right now I would consider a tossup/tilt R, but if Hillary ends up being on the same ballot and the Democrats can get someone like Michael Coleman, Marcia Fudge or Dennis Kucinich to run (Cordray  will decline now that he's with the CFPB), it could be lean D.

You've gotta be fcuking kidding me. You are coming off as barfbag of the left right now.

Here is a ranking of the races in terms of the likelihood of them being Democratic pickups (most likely to least likely)

Wisconsin
Illinois
New Hampshire
Arizona
Florida
Pennsylvania
Missouri
North Carolina
Iowa
Kentucky
Georgia
Ohio
Indiana
Alaska
Louisiana
Arkansas
South Carolina
Kansas
Oklahoma
Idaho
South Dakota
North Dakota
Alabama
Utah

More Likely than Not
Solid Possibility
There's a Chance
Doubtful
Very Unlikely
No Way, José

And for the likelihood of a Republican Pickup

Nevada
Colorado
Washington
Connecticut
Oregon
California
New York
Hawaii
Maryland
Vermont

Perhaps
Not Likely
No Way, José

How do you consider Iowa a solid possibility but Ohio doubtful? Grassley already announced he's running and is almost guaranteed to win re-election despite it being a state that usually leans D. Portman hasn't even announced yet if he'll run for another term, but due to his high unpopularity in Ohio, it really shouldn't matter either way. And I will take back what I said on Kucinich being lean D; he is with Fox News afterall so he wouldn't run anyways. But if any seat has a better chance at flipping to the Democratic Party in 2016, it will be Ohio before Iowa.

I agree on everything else except I think Connecticut should be listed under there as "No Way, Jose" because there's nobody who can beat Blumenthal. Even in the GOP wave, Linda McMahon couldn't even come close to defeating him no matter how much money she put into the race.

My entire Iowa analysis is based on the premise that I don't believe Grassley when he says he is running. Sorry, that should have been clarified. It is Safe R with Grassley.

[ElectionsGuy]

Missouri: Would Lean R be more appropriate, I realize Roy Blunt isn't the most popular figure on the street, but he's a republican incumbent in a (now) republican state, this should be Lean R at the most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Nixon

Just because a democratic governor got elected doesn't mean this race is a potential pickup. Susana Martinez isn't going to block Tom Udall from sliding to victory in New Mexico is she? The right democrats can get elected in Missouri, but Blunt is the incumbent this time. The race is probably in his favor.

[morgieb]

Alabama: It's Alabama. Even if Shelby quits, they won't lose this. Safe R.
Alaska: Likely R. Genuine risk that Murkowski loses a primary, if she does there's an opening for the Dems if they find an OK candidate.
Arizona: Leans R. I think McCain retires. Without him, it's winnable for the Dems, but it depends on if they can find a decent candidate and if they get any sign of coattails from the top of the ticket.
Arkansas: Leans R. Gettable if Hillary is on the ticket and Beebe runs, but this state is moving in an ugly direction.
California: Safe D. Even if Boxer quits, the Democratic bench is a billion times stronger than the Pub bench, and that's not even counting the blueness of the state.
Colorado: Leans D. Bennett has the advantage due to 2010. But it's one of the Republicans few opportunities, and I reckon whoever the Dems nominate is a worse fit for Colorado than Obama was.
Connecticut: Safe D. Don't really see how the Democrats lose this if Blumenthal won by a solid margin in 2010.
Florida: Leans R. Don't see Rubio lasting long in the Presidential race, so he runs again. Ought to be favoured for this as the Democrats lack a real bench here.
Georgia: Likely R. Rests on Isakson and Nunn. If the former retires and the latter wins, it will be very interesting. Even if Nunn doesn't win, the turnout differences will help, particularly if Hillary is on the top of the ticket. Isakson should win if he runs though.
Hawaii: Regardless of whether Schatz or Hanabusa is the nominee, it's Safe D.
Idaho. Yeah....although I don't think primary voters will forget Crapo's indiscretions that easily, it's Safe R.
Illinois: Leans D (takeover). Gut feel is that this is Brown/Warren 2.0. Kirk may be well-liked, but it's hard to see him getting over the line in a blue state in an election year. In addition, he has had health problems which may affect his capacity to run again. But Kirk can still win if the Dems nominate a weak candidate.
Indiana: Safe R. Should be safe enough, though I have NFI about Coats's strength.
Iowa: Likely R. Grassley will win if he runs again, and he says he will. There's a chance he changes his mind, though.
Kansas: Safe R, duh.
Kentucky: Leans R. Likely Paul runs for President. Winnable but whoever gets the Republican nomination is favoured, Dems have some strong candidates but are they electable at a national level? Of course, if Grimes wins, this race goes into toss-up territory.
Louisiana: Safe R. I think Vitter becomes Governor, but it's hard to see the right circumstances in which a Dem wins.
Maryland: Safe D. Even if Mikulski retires, it's safe.
Missouri: Tilts R. If Nixon runs it will be very tight, perhaps even leaning in his favour. But the Democratic bench here is weak enough that Blunt will be favoured if Nixon doesn't run, despite his weak approvals.
Nevada: Toss-up. If Sandoval runs it'll be hard to hold for Team D. If he doesn't then the Dems are favoured, will a party that's been taken over by Paulites name an electable candidate?
New Hampshire: Tilts R. The elasticity here is well known, but Ayotte probably deserves the advantage for now.
New York: Safe D. One of the safest seats, even if the style of New York politics is changing.
North Carolina: Tilts R. Not the state in which incumbency can be taken for granted, and Burr is still little-known despite being in office for two terms. It depends on who runs though.
North Dakota: Safe R. There are reasons why Hoeven won by 50 points in an open seat.
Ohio: Leans R. Again another race where the Republicans start off with the advantage but is winnable for Team D depending on the top of the ticket and their candidate. That said, Portman has performed well.
Oklahoma: Safe R. The days in which a Blue Dog could win Oklahoma are dying out, even if Coburn quits.
Oregon: Safe D. Wyden has always won in style, and is well-liked among both sides of the political spectrum.
Pennsylvania: Tilts R. Toomey has performed well and deserves favouritism for now, although Sestak is a strong candidate. This race however probably depends on the top of the ticket performances, Clinton vs. anyone not named Christie puts this in the toss-up category.
South Carolina: Safe R.
South Dakota: Safe R, will the Democrats actually run someone this time?
Utah: Safe R.
Vermont: Even if Leahy retires, Safe D.
Washington: Safe D. Murray won't win in a landslide but she'll win regardless.
Wisconsin: Toss-up. Johnson should be in big trouble, but will he get a strong opponent? He has the advantage in a field which doesn't contain Feingold or Kind.

In general, this feels like 2012 reversed - Democrats have a lot of pick-up opportunities, but will they win all of them?

[Vosem]

who are clearly about to lose several seats

All right, slow down tiger. South Dakota is the only seat that's gone

West Virginia is as gone as South Dakota, Democrats are already behind in Montana and tied in Arkansas (red states where undecideds usually break against them); Begich barely leads Treadwell, far from 50, in an Alaska where Democrats consistently overpoll (and before you cite Miller he has not lead in a single poll), and in Louisiana, if Landrieu fails to break 50 she will have to deal with a runoff election where turnout will not be in her favor. It's quite a stretch to see Democrats winning three of these six.

and Kentucky and Georgia are on the table.

I'll address these separately. In Kentucky, Grimes is currently effectively tied with McConnell in the mid-40s, but Kentucky has been extremely averse to electing Democrats at the federal level recently and Grimes' campaign has been poorly managed (still time to fix that, but it's a bad early sign). In Georgia, polling has shown Nunn consistently in the low 40s, and like in Louisiana if she does not break 50 she will have to deal with an off-date election with low turnout. And Georgia is a more polarized state than, say, Indiana or Missouri -- it will be harder for Nunn to bounce off a gaffe or bad candidate to victory. In summary, Georgia is doubtful for Democrats but at least possible; while Kentucky won't fall without a strong regional or national wave for Democrats, neither of which is anywhere in sight.

The plausible range is from D+1 to R+6

To get D+1 Democrats need to sit down and get at least one more race seriously on the table. Natalie Tennant trailing in WV by double-digits doesn't count. The plausible range is somewhere from 0 (GA+KY/SD+WV) to around R+10ish (every Romney state and Michigan is clearly on the table, which makes 8, plus a maximum of 2 more from the 'a-hair-away-from-safe' quintet of CO/IA/MN/NH/OR; more than 2 of those is extremely doubtful).

, but realistically, it's gonna fall between R+1 and R+3

Realistically, Republicans are currently seriously shooting at 6 seats (AK, AR, LA, MT, SD, WV), while Democrats are shooting at 2 (GA, KY), so R+4 is probably the 'median' of possible futures. Democrats should be pretty satisfied with an R+3 result; that could correspond with small gains in the House.

Just because a democratic governor got elected doesn't mean this race is a potential pickup. Susana Martinez isn't going to block Tom Udall from sliding to victory in New Mexico is she? The right democrats can get elected in Missouri, but Blunt is the incumbent this time. The race is probably in his favor.

Martinez has never indicated any interest in the Senate, while Nixon actually ran for the Senate once already in 1998, doesn't seem to be planning to exit politics soon, won't be that old in 2016, and would have the Democratic nomination sewed up if he wants it, leading many to conclude that he is a possible 2016 Senate candidate.

[ElectionsGuy]

Martinez has never indicated any interest in the Senate, while Nixon actually ran for the Senate once already in 1998, doesn't seem to be planning to exit politics soon, won't be that old in 2016, and would have the Democratic nomination sewed up if he wants it, leading many to conclude that he is a possible 2016 Senate candidate.

So that's what he meant. Has he shown any signs or interest in running for the Senate again? Even if he did, I would still give Blunt a slight head start.

[IceSpear]

Missouri: Would Lean R be more appropriate, I realize Roy Blunt isn't the most popular figure on the street, but he's a republican incumbent in a (now) republican state, this should be Lean R at the most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Nixon

Just because a democratic governor got elected doesn't mean this race is a potential pickup. Susana Martinez isn't going to block Tom Udall from sliding to victory in New Mexico is she? The right democrats can get elected in Missouri, but Blunt is the incumbent this time. The race is probably in his favor.

Udall and Martinez are both popular. But Nixon is popular while Blunt is unpopular. Plus NM is more blue than MO is red.

[PolitiJunkie]

Missouri: Would Lean R be more appropriate, I realize Roy Blunt isn't the most popular figure on the street, but he's a republican incumbent in a (now) republican state, this should be Lean R at the most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Nixon

Just because a democratic governor got elected doesn't mean this race is a potential pickup. Susana Martinez isn't going to block Tom Udall from sliding to victory in New Mexico is she? The right democrats can get elected in Missouri, but Blunt is the incumbent this time. The race is probably in his favor.

Udall and Martinez are both popular. But Nixon is popular while Blunt is unpopular. Plus NM is more blue than MO is red.

That

[Orser67]

Safe R: Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah
Safe D: California, Maryland, New York, Vermont

Very Likely R
Arkansas: Potential marquee opponent (Beebe)
Louisiana
North Dakota
Oklahoma: Only potentially competitive if Coburn follows through on his promise to retire and Dems get a marquee candidate (e.g. Henry)
South Dakota

Very Likely D
Connecticut
Oregon
Washington

Likely R:
Alaska: Possibility of a three-way race, Murkowski going Indy, and/or Republicans nominating a terrible candidate makes me put it here, despite lack of a Dem bench in a very red state
Georgia: Isakson should be ok if he runs, even if he faces a decent challenger, but the state is close enough that Dems could make it semi-competitive, and the Dems have a decent bench
Indiana: Basically the same as Georgia
Iowa: Grassley says he is running, in which case he should win, but he'll be in his 80's so there's a decent chance he doesn't run. Tom Harkin might also make it competitive even if Grassley does run.
Kentucky: Paul's national ambitions could hurt him back home, even if he does run, and Dems have a good bench. But obviously a very red state.
Missouri: Blunt has a definite advantage in the red-leaning state, but Dems have a good bench and a potential marquee candidate (Nixon)

Likely D:
None

Lean R:
Arizona: McCain might retire and doesn't have great approval ratings anyway. Still a Republican advantage in a red-leaning state
Florida: First-term Senator in a swing state, and might retire/be distracted, although Dems have a weak bench
New Hampshire: First-term Senator in a swing state
North Carolina: Burr doesn't have great approvals, could retire, and is in a swing state.
Ohio: First-term Senator in a swing state
Pennsylvania: First-term Senator in a swing state

Lean D:
Colorado: First-term Senator in a swing state
Illinois: Kirk's a talented politician but he starts as the underdog in this blue state
Nevada: Reid isn't all that popular, and could face a top candidate (Sandoval), but he's got a pretty impressive machine

Tossup:
Wisconsin: First-term Senator in a swing state, but this particular Senator isn't a great ideological fit for his state and could face a top candidate (Feingold)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Default candidate in Illinois will be Quigley. I still like our chances this yr in MnT and our chances in Wisc are great. So we can lose Ark and SD this yr and definitely win Wisc and Illinois.

[publicunofficial]

Assuming McCain and Coburn are the only retirements (I know others could decide not to run, but this is just for now):


Safe D:
New York (Schumer)
California (Boxer)
Vermont (Leahy)
Connecticut (Blumenthal)
Maryland (Mikulski)
Oregon (Wyden)
Washington (Murray)
Hawaii (Schatz*)

Likely D:


Lean D:
Colorado (Bennet)
Nevada (Reid)

Toss-Up:
Illinois (Kirk)
Wisconsin (Johnson)
Pennsylvania (Toomey)
New Hampshire (Ayotte)

Lean R:
Arizona (Open)
Florida (Rubio)
North Carolina (Burr)
Ohio (Portman)

Likely R:
Arkansas (Boozman)
Missouri (Blunt)
Kentucky (Paul)
Georgia (Isakson)
Louisiana (Vitter)
Indiana (Coats)

Safe R:
Alaska (Murkowski)
Alabama (Shelby)
Kansas (Moran)
Idaho (Crapo)
North Dakota (Hoeven)
South Dakota (Thune)
Oklahoma (Open)
Utah (Lee)
Iowa (Grassley)
South Carolina (Scott*)

[opebo]

Likely R:
Missouri (Blunt)

Nixon's really popular, and he's just perfect fit for a D win - downstater, rural background, no connection to the cities.  Blunt's deeply unpopular, and has only got a base in the part of the state that's a given for the GOP candidate anyway - he has very little appeal in other rural parts of the state or in suburban areas.

[publicunofficial]

Likely R:
Missouri (Blunt)

Nixon's really popular, and he's just perfect fit for a D win - downstater, rural background, no connection to the cities.  Blunt's deeply unpopular, and has only got a base in the part of the state that's a given for the GOP candidate anyway - he has very little appeal in other rural parts of the state or in suburban areas.

Which is why I put it as Likely R and not Safe R.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Tossups
Illinois
Wisc

Competetive
Neveda
Arizona should McCain retire
Colorado

Leaning respective party
Ayotte
Toomey
Rubio

Safe
Mizz
Portman

[PolitiJunkie]

Iowa: Grassley says he is running, in which case he should win, but he'll be in his 80's so there's a decent chance he doesn't run. Tom Harkin might also make it competitive even if Grassley does run.

Why would Tom Harkin run for Senate two years after retiring? Besides, David Loebsack probably wants a turn, and Tom Vilsack may decide to run for Senate but I'd be surprised.

[Orser67]

Why would Tom Harkin run for Senate two years after retiring? Besides, David Loebsack probably wants a turn, and Tom Vilsack may decide to run for Senate but I'd be surprised.

My mistake, I meant Tom Vilsack.  According to this article, Vilsack is looking at the seat, whether or not Grassley runs:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkeye_politicians_finally_see_some_opportunity_in_2014_farm_team-225974-1.html?pg=2

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Alabama --> safe R
Alaska --> safe R
Arizona --> leans R
Arkansas --> safe R; tossup if Gov. Mike Beebe (D) runs
California --> safe D
Colorado --> leans D
Connecticut --> safe D
Florida --> tossup
Georgia --> leans R
Hawaii --> safe D
Idaho --> safe R
Illinois --> leans D
Indiana --> likely R; tossup if ex Sen. Evan Bayh (D) runs and Coats retires
Iowa --> likely R
Kansas --> safe R
Kentucky --> tossup; assuming Gov. Beshear (D) runs and Paul runs for president
Louisiana --> safe R
Maryland --> safe D
Missouri --> leans R; leans D if Gov. Jay Nixon (D) runs
Nevada --> tossup; leans D if Harry Reid isn't on the ballot
New Hampshire --> leans R
New York --> safe D
North Carolina --> leans R
North Dakota --> safe R
Ohio --> tossup
Oklahoma --> safe R
Oregon --> safe D
Pennsylvania --> tossup
South Carolina --> safe R
South Dakota --> safe R
Utah --> safe R; leans R if Rep. Jim Matheson (D) runs
Vermont --> safe D
Washington --> safe D
Wisconsin --> tossup

[ElectionsGuy]

Oh, I remember this thread. Thanks for bumping, I kind of want to do an update now (not that anything has changed, but whatever). These are all assuming that current speculated candidates don't run against incumbents, and that the incumbent doesn't retire (unless they've already said so).

Alabama: Safe R
Alaska: Safe R
Arizona: Lean R (Assuming John McCain retires)
Arkansas: Safe R
California: Safe D
Colorado: Lean D
Connecticut: Safe D
Florida: Lean R
Georgia: Likely R
Hawaii: Safe D
Idaho: Safe R
Illinois: Toss-Up
Indiana: Safe R (Assuming Bayh doesn't run)
Iowa: Likely R (Assuming Grassely runs again)
Kansas: Safe R
Kentucky: Likely R
Louisiana: Safe R
Maryland: Safe D
Missouri: Likely R (Assuming Nixon doesn't run)
Nevada: Lean D (Assuming Sandoval doesn't run)
New Hampshire: Lean R
New York: Safe D
North Carolina: Lean R
North Dakota: Safe R
Ohio: Likely R
Oklahoma: Safe R
Oregon: Safe D
Pennsylvania: Toss-Up
South Carolina: Safe R
South Dakota: Safe R
Utah: Safe R (Assuming Matheson doesn't run)
Vermont: Safe D
Washington: Safe D
Wisconsin: Toss-Up
Wyoming: Safe R

[morgieb]

Alabama: Safe R
Alaska: Likely R
Arizona: Lean R
Arkansas: Likely R
California: Safe D
Colorado: Lean D
Connecticut: Safe D
Florida: Lean R
Hawaii: Safe D
Georgia: Likely R
Illinois: Tossup
Indiana: Safe R
Iowa: Likely R
Kansas: Safe R
Kentucky: Lean R
Louisiana: Safe R
Maryland: Safe D
Missouri: Lean R
Nevada: Tossup
New Hampshire: Tossup
New York: Safe D
North Carolina: Tossup
North Dakota: Safe R
Ohio: Lean R
Oklahoma: Safe R
Oregon: Safe D
Pennsylvania: Tossup
South Carolina: Safe R
South Dakota: Safe R
Utah: Safe R
Vermont: Safe D
Washington: Safe D
Wisconsin: Tossup

[SWE]

Alabama --> safe R
Alaska --> safe R
Arizona --> leans R
Arkansas --> safe R
California --> safe D
Colorado --> leans D
Connecticut --> safe D
Florida --> tossup
Georgia --> safe R
Hawaii --> safe D
Idaho --> safe R
Illinois --> leans D
Indiana --> likely R
Iowa --> likely R
Kansas --> safe R
Kentucky --> safe r
Louisiana --> safe R
Maryland --> safe D
Missouri --> leans R
Nevada --> tossup
New Hampshire --> tossup
New York --> safe D
North Carolina --> leans R
North Dakota --> safe R
Ohio --> leans r
Oklahoma --> safe R
Oregon --> safe D
Pennsylvania --> tossup
South Carolina --> safe R
South Dakota --> safe R
Utah --> safe R
Vermont --> safe D
Washington --> safe D
Wisconsin --> tossup