Easiest pathway for Democrats to hold the Senate?

[IceSpear]

For the purposes of this poll, let's assume that Republicans pick up MT/WV/SD/AR, Democrats hold NC, and Orman wins and will caucus with the Democrats no matter what. That means in order to retain the majority, Democrats would have to win three of the above six seats. Which three represent the Democrats' easiest pathway?

[Miles]

IA and CO (Obama states) plus AK (As Begich has the superior ground game).

[ElectionsGuy]

CO, IA, and AK.

[Vosem]

Keep all Obama states & North Carolina; have Orman win in Kansas and caucus with the Democrats, and then Biden breaks the tie. 50-50, minimum Senate. To do it without Orman is very hard, but I think the likeliest is either having there be a different climate in January or a David Perdue meltdown and then having Michelle Nunn enter the Senate. Nunn, strangely, is probably a likelier winner than any other red-state Democrat (except Hagan and, if you count him, Orman).

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Kentucky and Alaska for sure, and then I guess 3rd would be an Ernst collapse. Of course, after that, if JE prevails, the Dems would have opportunities in the two runoffs - one with an incumbent, one where neither's an incumbent, albeit in red states so the ground game could be critical. Landrieu might be in serious trouble at this stage though. Nunn could possibly make a comeback.
As a Republican, I am much more concerned about South Dakota. Rounds' is just going to continue dropping IMO.

[Vega]

IA and CO (Obama states) plus AK (As Begich has the superior ground game).

[Ogre Mage]

IA and CO (Obama states) plus AK (As Begich has the superior ground game).

[Maxwell]

Alaska, Iowa, Georgia.

[morgieb]

Alaska, Iowa, Georgia.

No Colorado? Very interesting.

I'll say the two Obama states and Alaska.

[Eraserhead]

Colorado (of course), Louisiana (trust me) and... err... Iowa I suppose.

[Mr. Morden]

Wait, haven't you miscounted here, or is it me?  Don't the Dems only need to win two of the above?

If KS goes Dem. and no other GOP seats do, then the GOP needs to flip seven Democratic seats their way to get a majority.  So MT/WV/SD/AR.  GA and KY are already GOP, so the GOP needs three of AK/CO/IA/LA.  So if the Dems win just two of those, then the Senate is 50/50 and Biden breaks the tie, to give them control.

[Mehmentum]

Wait, haven't you miscounted here, or is it me?  Don't the Dems only need to win two of the above?

If KS goes Dem. and no other GOP seats do, then the GOP needs to flip seven Democratic seats their way to get a majority.  So MT/WV/SD/AR.  GA and KY are already GOP, so the GOP needs three of AK/CO/IA/LA.  So if the Dems win just two of those, then the Senate is 50/50 and Biden breaks the tie, to give them control.

Yep.

[Miles]

Wait, haven't you miscounted here, or is it me?  Don't the Dems only need to win two of the above?

If KS goes Dem. and no other GOP seats do, then the GOP needs to flip seven Democratic seats their way to get a majority.  So MT/WV/SD/AR.  GA and KY are already GOP, so the GOP needs three of AK/CO/IA/LA.  So if the Dems win just two of those, then the Senate is 50/50 and Biden breaks the tie, to give them control.

Yep.

Ah, right. I knew there was something off.

But yeah, Obama seats plus Hagan and Orman:

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Rounds losing is far more likely than Grimes winning and Pryor winning is more likely than Landrieu winning a run-off if Senate control was perceived as coming down to her seat.  Landrieu can only win if a victory in Georgia would put the Republicans at either >50 or 50< Senate seats.  If Georgia would put them at 50, she's toast.

[IceSpear]

Wait, haven't you miscounted here, or is it me?  Don't the Dems only need to win two of the above?

If KS goes Dem. and no other GOP seats do, then the GOP needs to flip seven Democratic seats their way to get a majority.  So MT/WV/SD/AR.  GA and KY are already GOP, so the GOP needs three of AK/CO/IA/LA.  So if the Dems win just two of those, then the Senate is 50/50 and Biden breaks the tie, to give them control.

[Bigby]

Colorado and Iowa, and Alaska if a third seat is needed.

[Adam Griffin]

Rounds losing is far more likely than Grimes winning and Pryor winning is more likely than Landrieu winning a run-off if Senate control was perceived as coming down to her seat.  Landrieu can only win if a victory in Georgia would put the Republicans at either >50 or 50< Senate seats.  If Georgia would put them at 50, she's toast.

GA runoff will be after LA runoff.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Udall, Grimes and Orman wins.

[Mr. Smith]

At this point probably Landrieu in Louisiana (like McConnell she seems to have a way of slipping through the tightest of races), Begich in Alaska, and Udall in Colorado.

Braley really seems to be slipping. Nunn doesn't have Landrieu's incumbency advantage and likely will lose any run-off despite a plurality.

However, I don't think Weiland/Pressler in South Dakota should be counted out yet.

[nolesfan2011]

AK, IA and CO.. cheaper too. KY is gone, Nunn isn't going to get over 50% in GA, and Landreiu is in dissarray

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Landreiu is in dissarray

This post is in disarray.