Preliminary 2016 Senate Race Rankings - No Tossups

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

If the Dems play it right, they could make major gains in 2016.

Easy pickups:
WI, PA, IL

Nominate the right candidate/barring campaign and candidate gaffes/Presidential turnout levels, they could knock off:
NC, FL, OH, NH, MO

As always, AZ and GA will give the (debatably false) impression they could be competitive.

Beshear or Beebe could pull a Tommy Thompson, but I don't think they will run (or win if they did).

Nevada is really the only state Dems would likely lose. CO if Bennet implodes, but it seems safer in a Presidential year.

This is the most "purple" senate class, so it'll take a wave to get serious movement, which obviously it is too far out to tell and probably not going to be a 2006/2008 year for Dems. It's most likely to be neutral in my opinion.

P.S. Will Jim Matheson run for Governor or Senate??

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Since you said no toss ups, I put "tilt" ratings where I would normally put toss ups.

Alaska: Likely R - Since Murkowski will actually be on the ballot next time, it's hard to see her losing, but in a potential three way race it could be possible.
Arizona: Lean R - If McCain doesn't retire, he'd get beaten in the primary anyway.
Arkansas: Lean R - If Mike Beebe runs it's tilt D. But if he doesn't it's likely R. So I split the difference.
Colorado: Tilt D - What happens with Udall this year will speak volumes for Bennet. Fortunately for Bennet, he will benefit from presidential year turnout.
Florida: Tilt R - Lean R if Rubio doesn't run for president, but it's looking like he will.
Georgia: Lean R - Likely R if Isakson runs, tilt R if he retires and Dems get Nunn to run again.
Illinois: Lean D takeover - Hard to see how Kirk survives considering he barely beat a horrible opponent in a GOP wave year. He has no groundswell of popularity, he got hammered for lying about his war record in 2010 and won clearly as the lesser of two evils, not as an above the fray moderate. That said, Dems could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here by nominating another horrible candidate (it's Illinois after all).
Indiana: Lean R - Coats could retire, even if he doesn't it's possible he could be beaten. Ellsworth would've given him a tough race in a non wave year.
Iowa: Likely R - Assuming Grassley doesn't change his mind. If he retires, tilt D.
Kentucky: Likely R - Whether or not Paul runs for president. Though Steve Beshear running would make it tilt R.
Louisiana: Likely R - Too much in flux here to say anything, but Dems have slim odds.
Missouri: Tilt D takeover - Roy Blunt is not popular at all, and Hillary should do much better here than Obama. It feels weird putting it as tilt D, but yeah, no toss ups.
Nevada: Tilt D - So much depends on who runs. Democrats would be best without Reid, and Sandoval would put the Republicans in control if he ran (lean R minimum). In generic D vs. generic R, the Democrat has the edge though.
New Hampshire: Tilt R - This will be hotly contested, but NH is quirky enough that Ayotte could survive even in a good Dem year.
North Carolina: Tilt R - I think Burr survives by the skin of his teeth, even if Hillary narrowly wins the state.
Ohio: Lean R - Portman could be primaried, which would make this tilt...R I guess? This race should be competitive, but Portman starts with the edge.
Oregon: Likely D - Safe if Wyden runs for re-election.
Pennsylvania: Tilt D takeover -  Toomey will be in huge trouble during a presidential year with higher turnout. Since I have to pick a winner, I'm giving it to Sestak by the skin of his teeth.
Wisconsin: Lean D takeover - Johnson will probably be a one termer. He's done basically nothing he needs to do to get re-elected in a blue state. His only hope is another Republican wave dragging him over the finish line or a crappy opponent.

Everything else is safe. Overall net seats is D+4.

Specter survived in 2004 and 1992 when PA went Dem. What's the difference? And Kirk is shown to be able to hold his own based on early polls.

Nearly every incumbent holds their own in early polls.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Since you said no toss ups, I put "tilt" ratings where I would normally put toss ups.

Alaska: Likely R - Since Murkowski will actually be on the ballot next time, it's hard to see her losing, but in a potential three way race it could be possible.
Arizona: Lean R - If McCain doesn't retire, he'd get beaten in the primary anyway.
Arkansas: Lean R - If Mike Beebe runs it's tilt D. But if he doesn't it's likely R. So I split the difference.
Colorado: Tilt D - What happens with Udall this year will speak volumes for Bennet. Fortunately for Bennet, he will benefit from presidential year turnout.
Florida: Tilt R - Lean R if Rubio doesn't run for president, but it's looking like he will.
Georgia: Lean R - Likely R if Isakson runs, tilt R if he retires and Dems get Nunn to run again.
Illinois: Lean D takeover - Hard to see how Kirk survives considering he barely beat a horrible opponent in a GOP wave year. He has no groundswell of popularity, he got hammered for lying about his war record in 2010 and won clearly as the lesser of two evils, not as an above the fray moderate. That said, Dems could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here by nominating another horrible candidate (it's Illinois after all).
Indiana: Lean R - Coats could retire, even if he doesn't it's possible he could be beaten. Ellsworth would've given him a tough race in a non wave year.
Iowa: Likely R - Assuming Grassley doesn't change his mind. If he retires, tilt D.
Kentucky: Likely R - Whether or not Paul runs for president. Though Steve Beshear running would make it tilt R.
Louisiana: Likely R - Too much in flux here to say anything, but Dems have slim odds.
Missouri: Tilt D takeover - Roy Blunt is not popular at all, and Hillary should do much better here than Obama. It feels weird putting it as tilt D, but yeah, no toss ups.
Nevada: Tilt D - So much depends on who runs. Democrats would be best without Reid, and Sandoval would put the Republicans in control if he ran (lean R minimum). In generic D vs. generic R, the Democrat has the edge though.
New Hampshire: Tilt R - This will be hotly contested, but NH is quirky enough that Ayotte could survive even in a good Dem year.
North Carolina: Tilt R - I think Burr survives by the skin of his teeth, even if Hillary narrowly wins the state.
Ohio: Lean R - Portman could be primaried, which would make this tilt...R I guess? This race should be competitive, but Portman starts with the edge.
Oregon: Likely D - Safe if Wyden runs for re-election.
Pennsylvania: Tilt D takeover -  Toomey will be in huge trouble during a presidential year with higher turnout. Since I have to pick a winner, I'm giving it to Sestak by the skin of his teeth.
Wisconsin: Lean D takeover - Johnson will probably be a one termer. He's done basically nothing he needs to do to get re-elected in a blue state. His only hope is another Republican wave dragging him over the finish line or a crappy opponent.

Everything else is safe. Overall net seats is D+4.

Specter survived in 2004 and 1992 when PA went Dem. What's the difference? And Kirk is shown to be able to hold his own based on early polls.

Nearly every incumbent holds their own in early polls.

Then why are we quick to call them gonners? I get that their states are left leaning, but Heitkamp won when her state went overwhelmingly red? Or why did Brown only lose by high singles when MA went overwhelmingly blue? I'm pretty sure Toomey and Kirk are what loons would call RINOs, so moderacy is no issue. And who is to say that those early polls aren't genuine strength?

We call Johnson a goner because he has been trailing significantly in early polling with a Feingold rematch. And everyone saw how Presidential year Wisconsin came home to Baldwin in 2012.

The only moderate cred Toomey has is SSM and Manchin-Toomey, which won't mean anything by 2016. He won by 3 points in a midterm year. Take Landrieu, an incumbent in an unfriendly state who was polling +10 through all of 2013 in a head to head with Cassidy. I think PPP had Toomey trailing Kane, and barely ahead of Sestak. Pennsylvania should go Democratic by 5-7 points in 2016, so I'd expect Toomey to lose by 3-5.

I don't think any polling has really been done on Kirk 2016 except the PPP back in 2013 showing him tied with Madigan. He eeked out a less than 2 point win in 2010. Don't expect Cook County to let that happen again. A tied race this far out is not holding your own in early polls.

To be fair, everyone thought Berg would win in 2012. He proved to be a crappy candidate, and Heitkamp barely scraped by.

Of course Obama was going to run ahead of Brown in MA. The Dem (can we just say Hillary now?) will win by a larger margin than Kirk, Johnson, Toomey, and probably Ayotte, even though all four of those candidates may very well win their races still. I believe the technical term is "muh incumbency."

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Here's the thing. If Feingold ran and the GOP had a seat to spare, then welcome back. Otherwise, I think Johnson can hang on. However, I think that the Dems will pour a lot of money into Nevada, diluting attention away from everywhere else. And no, we can't say Hillary. At least wait for an announcement, because we will look really stupid otherwise.

Tammy Baldwin was just a random Dem in the WI delegation when she ran against Thompson, who was undoubtably a better candidate than Johnson. If Kind runs, it should shape up to be like 2012 in terms of numbers. Republicans haven't won a senate seat in a presidential year in Wisconsin since 1980. Whether it's Feingold or Kind, Johnson likely loses.

I think Reid will hold on, you think Johnson will hold on. This is where we laugh, accuse each other of being hacks, and move on.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

The question is, who will be the new Candy Desk Man if Kirk loses?

It's on the Republican side in the back row on the first aisle?

Probably a first termer that gets elected either this year or in 2016 will move in.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

As for early polls, everyone was putting AR/LA as lean D based off them back in 2013. NC looked almost safe D. Then the deluge of ads hammered them, and you know the rest of the story.

Just check out how cute this map was from a year ago...

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

A few months ago, I felt that the Democrats would have had a chance at picking up Arizona, Iowa and Missouri, but the Democrats chances at winning those seats have declined in my opinion. The reason why I don't see the Democrats picking up Arizona and Iowa is because both John McCain and Chuck Grassley have all but announced that they are running for re-election in 2016.

If anything, a John McCain run against a strong opponent like Synema or Carmona makes it an easier pick up. He's the most unpopular Senator in the country.