HuffPost on Dem targets in 2016: IL, WI, LA, NH, FL, GA, NC, PA, AZ, OH, IA, KY

[JRP1994]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/06/senate-2016_n_6109472.html

[Vega]

OH, LA and IA probably won't be in play barring a 2008 style wave.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OH, LA and IA probably won't be in play barring a 2008 style wave.

LA needs a wave. OH doesn't. IA just needs a Grassley retirement.

[CatoMinor]

Before the more hackish forum D's start jerking off to this article, just remember how many promising targets the GOP had in 2012 and then ended up netting a loss on election night. It is way too early to start getting hopes up.

[Mr. Smith]

I'm guessing only 4 of these are sure-fire, hoping Johnson and Toomey are half of those 4.

[Person Man]

Before the more hackish forum D's start jerking off to this article, just remember how many promising targets the GOP had in 2012 and then ended up netting a loss on election night. It is way too early to start getting hopes up.

We could Aiken Murdock the sh**t out of 2016!

[Mehmentum]

Before the more hackish forum D's start jerking off to this article, just remember how many promising targets the GOP had in 2012 and then ended up netting a loss on election night. It is way too early to start getting hopes up.

Obviously there's no guarantee of anything in politics.  However, I'd rather be in the Democrat's position for 2016 than the Republicans.

[Landslide Lyndon]

OH, LA and IA probably won't be in play barring a 2008 style wave.

LA needs a wave. OH doesn't. IA just needs a Grassley retirement.

Grassley had his lowest percentage in 2010 of all years when the Democrats fielded a semi-credible candidate. If they recruit a strong candidate (Vilsack) then maybe that's enough to scare Grassley into retirement, like it happened with John and Mark Warner in 2008.

[Consciously Unconscious]

So it begins, this will be interesting to follow. 

[SPC]

Kirk hangs on unless its close enough that Cook County shenanigans can make a difference (Lean/Likely R if Tammy Duckworth is the nominee.)

Johnson is Walker sans charisma in a presidential year, so more likely than not loses unless Democrats put up a bad nominee.

Were they looking at election results for a different Louisiana and Kentucky last night and two years ago?

Ayotte is atrocious, basically a McCain clone, but New Hampshire seems to like McCain for some reason, and Hassan is overrated as an opponent.

Third time will not be the charm for Alex Sink, nor will fourth time be the charm for Charlie Crist. I think the Democratic bench here is poor enough than even Rubio would have a hard time screwing up re-election.

Nunn would need a 10-point swing to pull it off, which seems theoretically possible although Isakson has the advantage as an incumbent. Tossup if Isakson retires though.

Burr could lose theoretically, although at this point I think Hagan is damaged goods.

Toomey and Portman look like they have both done the legwork to get re-elected; both would be favorites against any potential opponents.

I have yet to see evidence of Arizona's "purpleness." Democrats' best hope would be if McCain runs again and screw up either the primary or the general.

No way that Grassley loses his seat for reasons other the biological inevitability, and even then Branstad's appointee would be favored.

Path of least resistance for Democrats to take back the Senate would be to win Wisconsin, Illinois, New Hampshire, and Georgia, and hoping that Reid, Bennet, and Blumenthal hang on. That still seems like a tall order.

[moderatevoter]

As I've said before here, this map is in theory good for Democrats, but there are a lot of variables at play here.

I think Democrats should win Illinois and Wisconsin without too much trouble, unless they majorly blow either race. I do not think Madigan is going to run, but IL Democrats do not need a top recruit to beat Kirk in a Presidential Year. Similar case in Wisconsin.

After that, things get murky.

Ayotte and Toomey, for example, both have tough races on their hands, but neither is dead on arrival. Their survival depends on a) the candidates Democrats recruit b) the environment (and performance at the top of the ticket) c) retirements and d) the individual campaigns.

[Person Man]

As I've said before here, this map is in theory good for Democrats, but there are a lot of variables at play here.

I think Democrats should win Illinois and Wisconsin without too much trouble, unless they majorly blow either race. I do not think Madigan is going to run, but IL Democrats do not need a top recruit to beat Kirk in a Presidential Year. Similar case in Wisconsin.

After that, things get murky.

Ayotte and Toomey both have tough races on their hands, but neither is dead on arrival. Their survival depends on a) the candidates Democrats recruit b) the environment (and performance at the top of the ticket) c) retirements and d) the individual campaigns.

Too early to speculate.

In other words, "just wait for next election". But which one?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Blunt (R-MO) isn't a target? I'd put that race right around OH in terms of competitiveness.

[Vega]

OH, LA and IA probably won't be in play barring a 2008 style wave.

LA needs a wave. OH doesn't. IA just needs a Grassley retirement.

Grassley had his lowest percentage in 2010 of all years when the Democrats fielded a semi-credible candidate. If they recruit a strong candidate (Vilsack) then maybe that's enough to scare Grassley into retirement, like it happened with John and Mark Warner in 2008.

If Obama is as popular as he is now, picking his 8 year Agriculture Secretary might not be the greatest choice. Vislack was a good governor of Iowa in his own right, to be fair.

I doubt he'll run, though.

[Mr. Smith]

Yeah I can see Blunt being trounced by Koster pretty handily.

[mypalfish]

Ron Johnson seems like he'd be easy to beat, but he's got a ton of his own money to spend and he actually ran an extremely good campaign in 2010 and had maybe the best ad of the entire cycle with his "White Board" spot.

He's the definite underdog due to the expanded electorate, but he'll make it an interesting race.

[Vega]

Johnson might be the Republican Heitkamp of 2016.

[Mr. Smith]

Only if there's a Bruce Braley like candidate, if Russ Feingold returns, he's toast.

[KCDem]

Only IL, WI, NH, PA are legitimate targets at this point. We'll lose all the others and probably only win one of these.

[IceSpear]

Why would they list LA and KY but not MO?

[Consciously Unconscious]

Only IL, WI, NH, PA are legitimate targets at this point. We'll lose all the others and probably only win one of these.

Well, you've changed, lol. 

[henster]

Madigan would put away IL early while Duckworth would still win but it'd take a bit more money. Kind should win against Johnson assuming he runs. Toomey barely won in the 2010 wave and he's very conservative for the state I think Sestak pulls out Presidential turnout assisting him. Ayotte vs. Hassan will be tight to the end. Cordray could give Portman a run in Ohio. Jason Kander in Missouri could also be competitive. In FL Ds will likely look to Kathy Castor or Patrick Murphy to run against Rubio and if Ds do well in FL in 2016 they could carry them across the finish line. I also think KY will be open in 2016 because Paul will likely be forced to retire, Edelen could force Rs to spend money there.

[henster]

Only IL, WI, NH, PA are legitimate targets at this point. We'll lose all the others and probably only win one of these.

You don't think Jason Kander would be strong against Blunt?

[Vega]

Why would they list LA and KY but not MO?

I guess because Paul has been so vocal and might run for President, and Vitter had a prostitution scandal not too long ago.

Blunt has been your rank and file Republican so far.

[KCDem]

Only IL, WI, NH, PA are legitimate targets at this point. We'll lose all the others and probably only win one of these.

You don't think Jason Kander would be strong against Blunt?

Southern White Democrats are being hunted down across the country. Missouri is long gone. Blunt by 15 points.