List Senators up in 2016 from most vulnerable to least vulnerable

[ElectionsGuy]

Rank all the incumbents by vulnerability regardless of possible retirement or runs for other offices.

1. Mark Kirk (R-IL)
2. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
3. Pat Toomey (R-PA)
4. Harry Reid (D-NV)
5. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
6. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
7. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
8. John McCain (R-AZ)
9. Richard Burr (R-NC)
10. Rob Portman (R-OH)
11. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) (Primary)
12. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
13. Dan Coats (R-IN)
14. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

[Senator Cris]

You forgot McCain.

[ElectionsGuy]

You forgot McCain.

How could I?

[Senator Cris]

1. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
2. Mark Kirk (R-IL)
3. Pat Toomey (R-PA)
4. Harry Reid (D-NV)
5. John McCain (R-AZ) (Primary, General)
6. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
7. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
8. Richard Burr (R-NC)
9. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
10. Mike Lee (R-UT) (Primary, General)
11. Rob Portman (R-OH)
12. Lisa Murkwoski (R-AK) (Primary)
13. Dan Coats (R-IN)
14. Roy Blunt (R-MO)

Everyone after 15 is safe.

[IceSpear]

1) Kirk (R-IL)
2) Johnson (R-WI)
3) Toomey (R-PA)
4) Reid (D-NV)
5) McCain (R-AZ) (Because of both primary and general danger, otherwise he'd be lower)
6) Ayotte (R-NH)
7) Rubio (R-FL)
Burr (R-NC)
9) Bennet (D-CO)
10) Blunt (R-MO)
11) Murkowski (R-AK) (Because of primary danger)
12) Portman (R-OH)
13) Coats (R-IN)
14) Isakson (R-GA)
15) Lee (R-UT) (Because of primary danger, though possibly general if Matheson runs)

The rest are irrelevant barring unexpected retirements, exceptional/terrible recruits, and/or freak circumstances (which, to be fair, probably will occur in at least a couple).

[Xing]

1. Johnson (R-WI)
2. Kirk (R-IL)
3. Toomey (R-PA)
4. Reid (D-NV)
5. Ayotte (R-NH)
6. McCain (R-AZ) (Primary, but also GE)
7. Burr (R-NC)
8. Rubio (R-FL)
9. Lee (R-UT) (Primary only)
10. Murkowski (R-AK) (Primary only)
11. Bennet (D-CO)
12. Portman (R-OH)
13. Coats (R-IN)
14. Blunt (R-MO)

Everyone else is safe, though retirements in states like IA and KY could make those races interesting.

[Maxwell]

1. Johnson (R-WI)
2. Kirk (R-IL)
3. McCain (R-AZ) (DOA in a Primary, Possibly DOA in general)
4. Toomey (R-PA)
5. Reid (D-NV)
6. Rubio (R-FL)
7. Ayotte (R-NH)
8. Bennet (D-CO)
9. Burr (R-NC)
10. Lee (R-UT) (Primary)
11. Murkowski (R-AK) (DOA in a primary, but wins easily if Indy)
12. Portman (R-OH)
13. Blunt (R-MO)
14. Coats (R-IN)

The rest are fine.

1 and 2 are in the fight for their lives, I'd say Johnson is worse off because he's a worse fit for his state, but then again, both are extremely solid campaigners.

Took a leap on 3, but if PPP is to be trusted on the approvals side, which I'm not entirely sure about, but if so, I can't imagine McCain surviving this. He's done in any way, shape or form, especially if Democrats recruit the right person.

4 through 9 are Lean R or D. Toomey and Reid are in more risk than the rest, and there is a more obvious challenger to Toomey than Reid, but I don't think any of these are in potent risk. Decent risk? sure. But I think they'll be fine unless they get a spectacular challenger in a decent year one way or the other. If it turns out to be a neutral year, prepare for these people to be just fine.

10 is tricky. Mike Lee is Lean favored in the primary, partially because Republican primaries are filled with conservative voters, but there are some powerful people stepping up to beat Lee. It'll be interesting.

12, 13, 14 go in a wave, and that is a MAYBE, but besides that, I think they are fine.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

JOHNSON
KIRK
TOOMEY
REID
AYOTTE
McCAIN
BENNETT
RUBIO
BURR
MURKOWSKI

[Vega]

Are these lists exclusively to be based on the General Election? Because someone like Brian Schatz is perhaps the safest under that criteria, but under criteria based on a primary election... not so much.

[free my dawg]

Kirk
Johnson
Toomey
Ayotte
Reid
McCain (in primary, if he makes it to the general place somewhere in Isakson's range)
Bennet
Rubio (likely an open seat)
Burr
Murkowski (only because of primary, if she makes it she's the least vulnerable)
Portman
Lee (only because of primary - he's not vulnerable at all if he makes it, even with Matheson)
Blunt
Paul (likely open seat)
Coats
Isakson
Grassley (if he has a change of heart this is #4)
Louisiana-Open (let's face it - Vitter will be governor)
Boozman (if and only if Beebe runs)
Crapo (he may get primaried because of his DUI conviction/not being perceived as conservative, but nobody's beating him in the general)

And the rest are safe no matter what, primary or general.

[SWE]

Kirk
Johnson
Toomey
Ayotte
Reid
McCain
Rubio
Bennett
Burr
Portman
Murkowski

The rest don't matter

[BaconBacon96]

1. Johnson
2. Toomey
3. Kirk
4. McCain
5. Ayotte
6. Reid
7. Bennet
8. Rubio
9. Burr
10. Murkowski
11. Lee
12. Portman
13. Blunt
14. Coats

[ElectionsGuy]

Are these lists exclusively to be based on the General Election? Because someone like Brian Schatz is perhaps the safest under that criteria, but under criteria based on a primary election... not so much.

No, they can be for primaries too. That's why many are including Murkowski and Lee in their lists. I personally don't see Schatz vulnerable to another primary challenge, I know he barely survived that primary challenge, but he just got elected with 70% of the vote.

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

Republicans:

1. Johnson
2. Kirk
3. Toomey
4. Burr
5. Ayotte (switch this with #4 if it's an open seat)
6. Rubio (switch this with #5 if it's an open seat)
7. Portman
8. Blunt
9. McCain (When a strong primary challenger enters the race, switch this with #7. If McCain survives the primary, undo the switch. If he loses the primary/retires of his own free will, undo any switches, then switch this with #8 if it's an establishment candidate, or move #5-8 down one and make this the new #5 if it's a teapartier)
10. Isakson
11. Murkowski (primary vulnerability, she's safe in the general. Keep at 11 if she loses the primary to an establishment candidate, if it's a teapartier beating her, move #7-10 down one, make this the new #7.)
12. Coats
13. Paul (If open seat, move #9-12 down one spot, make this the new #9)
14. Crapo (primary vulnerability, the seat is safe in  the general)
15. Boozman (If Beebe runs, if he doesn't the seat is safe)
16. Grassley (If he retires, move #4-14 down one spot, make this the new #4)
17. Vitter (open seat vulnerability, it's safe if Vitter doesn't become governor and still runs for senate reelection)
18. Lee (If a strong primary challenger enters, move #7-16 down one spot, make this the new #7. If Lee wins the primary, undo that action. If he loses the primary, this seat is safe.)
19. Thune (Putting this here in case Sandlin or Brendan Johnson runs. If they don't the seat is Safe.)

Shelby, Moran, Hoeven, Lankford, and Scott are completely safe in the primary, and the seat is completely safe in the general even if they retire.


Democrats:

1. Reid (switch with #2 if Sandoval doesn't run)
2. Bennett
3. Blumenthal
4. Murray
5. Wyden (open seat vulnerability, if Wyden runs again the seat is safe.)
6. Schatz (primary vulnerability, seat is safe in the general)
7. Boxer (open seat vulnerability, if Boxer runs again the seat is safe.)

Mikulski, Schumer, and Leahy are completely safe in the primary, and their seats are safe in the general even if they retire.







 

[IceSpear]

Are these lists exclusively to be based on the General Election? Because someone like Brian Schatz is perhaps the safest under that criteria, but under criteria based on a primary election... not so much.

No, they can be for primaries too. That's why many are including Murkowski and Lee in their lists. I personally don't see Schatz vulnerable to another primary challenge, I know he barely survived that primary challenge, but he just got elected with 70% of the vote.

Plus he just won the primary and the election in his own right (as opposed to being just an appointment), and Abercrombie is gone. All of Hanabusa's ammunition against him is gone now.

[Mr. Illini]

Kirk
Johnson (WI)
Toomey
Reid
McCain
Ayotte
Burr
Bennet
Rubio
Blunt

[Vosem]

Of the ten seats that seem likelier than not to be competitive:

Reid
Kirk
Johnson
Bennet
Toomey
Rubio
Ayotte
Burr
Portman
McCain
Coats

The belief that Blunt or Isakson will be in a competitive race is strange. There are also some seats where competitive races are possible (like Iowa), but only if the incumbent retires. Reid, by the way, is objectively the most imperiled Senator, and Kirk is objectively the most-imperiled Republican Senator. Johnson is overrated, in that he's at a maybe 50/50 scenario and thought to be on his way to lose; Toomey is clearly favored, and McCain is still a formidable enough opponent that he'll be able to scare away top-tier opposition. He'll win underwhelmingly in the end, like Goldwater in 1980, and in 2022 he'll be out. I've read some speculation that he wants to set up McSally as his successor, but I don't know how true that is and she needs to survive to 2022 for it to be doable.

[Mr. Illini]

Bennet
Toomey

The delusion is real.

[Vosem]

Bennet
Toomey

The delusion is real.

So, when exactly is the PADP going to stop desperately searching for an alternative to their presumptive nominee?

[free my dawg]

Bennet
Toomey

The delusion is real.

So, when exactly is the PADP going to stop desperately searching for an alternative to their presumptive nominee?

Doesn't really matter. Considering Democrats' worst-case scenario was a 2-point loss, saying Colorado is more vulnerable than NH, FL (in an open race), or especially PA is blatant hackery. (not to mention saying that Reid is "objectively" more vulnerable than a largely unknown senator deep on enemy turf)

To further add, Sestak was never exactly well-liked in the PADP anyway, and they don't really have anybody who could compete with him. I'm not counting him out.

[Vosem]

Bennet
Toomey

The delusion is real.

So, when exactly is the PADP going to stop desperately searching for an alternative to their presumptive nominee?

Doesn't really matter. Considering Democrats' worst-case scenario was a 2-point loss, saying Colorado is more vulnerable than NH, FL (in an open race), or especially PA is blatant hackery.

Why is a 2-point loss Democrats' worst-case scenario? Republicans won the combined House races in Pennsylvania in 2014 by 11 points, and Arlen Specter beat Joe Hoeffel by 11 in 2004. Yes, 2010 was in a very good environment, but Toomey has incumbency now, he's perceived as more moderate now than he was then, since he's been very vocal about reaching across the aisle, and Joe Sestak has become a has-been after being inactive for six years.

Florida is very unlikely to be an open seat. Ayotte is definitely vulnerable in a Democratic wave, since her state is prone to large swings, but she's leading Democrats' dream nominee Maggie Hassan in early polling and overperformed significantly in 2010 -- I think she should be fine in a neutral year.

Colorado is more vulnerable than it looks because of the paucity of Republican offensive opportunities -- if 2016 is a good Republican year, Colorado will be targeted with more offensive money than any other opportunity over the past few cycles, and Bennet will be very vulnerable. (Of course, in a good Democratic year, it might just fall off the list of competitive races, as states like North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Ohio -- perhaps even Pennsylvania -- will in a good Republican year).

(not to mention saying that Reid is "objectively" more vulnerable than a largely unknown senator deep on enemy turf)

Yeah, it's better to be largely unknown than hated.

To further add, Sestak was never exactly well-liked in the PADP anyway, and they don't really have anybody who could compete with him. I'm not counting him out.

I'm not counting him out either, but I'm not going to count him as a super-strong candidate that starts off favored against a respected incumbent Senator in a swing state.

[IceSpear]

Bennet
Toomey

The delusion is real.

So, when exactly is the PADP going to stop desperately searching for an alternative to their presumptive nominee?

Who cares? The PA Dem establishment is still bitter that Sestak upended Specter in 2010. It has nothing to do with candidate quality, which he already proved by far outperforming expectations in 2010.

[IceSpear]

Bennet
Toomey

The delusion is real.

So, when exactly is the PADP going to stop desperately searching for an alternative to their presumptive nominee?

Doesn't really matter. Considering Democrats' worst-case scenario was a 2-point loss, saying Colorado is more vulnerable than NH, FL (in an open race), or especially PA is blatant hackery.

Why is a 2-point loss Democrats' worst-case scenario? Republicans won the combined House races in Pennsylvania in 2014 by 11 points, and Arlen Specter beat Joe Hoeffel by 11 in 2004. Yes, 2010 was in a very good environment, but Toomey has incumbency now, he's perceived as more moderate now than he was then, since he's been very vocal about reaching across the aisle, and Joe Sestak has become a has-been after being inactive for six years.

Florida is very unlikely to be an open seat. Ayotte is definitely vulnerable in a Democratic wave, since her state is prone to large swings, but she's leading Democrats' dream nominee Maggie Hassan in early polling and overperformed significantly in 2010 -- I think she should be fine in a neutral year.

Colorado is more vulnerable than it looks because of the paucity of Republican offensive opportunities -- if 2016 is a good Republican year, Colorado will be targeted with more offensive money than any other opportunity over the past few cycles, and Bennet will be very vulnerable. (Of course, in a good Democratic year, it might just fall off the list of competitive races, as states like North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Ohio -- perhaps even Pennsylvania -- will in a good Republican year).

(not to mention saying that Reid is "objectively" more vulnerable than a largely unknown senator deep on enemy turf)

Yeah, it's better to be largely unknown than hated.

To further add, Sestak was never exactly well-liked in the PADP anyway, and they don't really have anybody who could compete with him. I'm not counting him out.

I'm not counting him out either, but I'm not going to count him as a super-strong candidate that starts off favored against a respected incumbent Senator in a swing state.

I wouldn't say a 2 point win is Toomey's ceiling, but your examples for why it isn't are pretty lousy. So the GOP swept a bunch of House seats that Dems didn't even make a token effort to compete for in a low turnout midterm wave? Yeah, not exactly indicative of a lot. The Arlen Specter comparison is also fairly irrelevant. Specter was a long time respected incumbent who still had appeal to many people who are now fairly solid D voters, particularly around Philly and the suburbs.  Toomey, as a mostly unknown first termer, could only dream of matching that appeal. In addition, the country has become much more polarized since 2004. In short, the examples you provided aren't exactly good for any kind of extrapolation. An equivalent example would if Democrats said Hillary, Sestak, and all other statewide Dems were locks to win by double digits due to Wolf's double digit win even in this tough year. It just doesn't make any logical sense.

Let's compare to Colorado, where the GOP's strongest possible candidate ran a top notch campaign against a guy who spent the entire election talking about how his opponent wanted to ban birth control and condoms, all during an enormous low turnout midterm Republican wave. He won by 2 points. At least one of those factors won't be present in 2016 (low turnout midterm), and Bennet will probably learn from Udall's horrific campaign as well, so that would remove that factor. To say he's more vulnerable than Toomey is pure hackery. And just for the record, I wouldn't say Sestak is favored either. I'd say it starts as a pure toss up, but I'm not sure how one could call CO anything other than lean D (or at least tilt D) at this point.

[free my dawg]

Bennet
Toomey

The delusion is real.

So, when exactly is the PADP going to stop desperately searching for an alternative to their presumptive nominee?

Doesn't really matter. Considering Democrats' worst-case scenario was a 2-point loss, saying Colorado is more vulnerable than NH, FL (in an open race), or especially PA is blatant hackery.

Why is a 2-point loss Democrats' worst-case scenario? Republicans won the combined House races in Pennsylvania in 2014 by 11 points, and Arlen Specter beat Joe Hoeffel by 11 in 2004. Yes, 2010 was in a very good environment, but Toomey has incumbency now, he's perceived as more moderate now than he was then, since he's been very vocal about reaching across the aisle, and Joe Sestak has become a has-been after being inactive for six years.

Florida is very unlikely to be an open seat. Ayotte is definitely vulnerable in a Democratic wave, since her state is prone to large swings, but she's leading Democrats' dream nominee Maggie Hassan in early polling and overperformed significantly in 2010 -- I think she should be fine in a neutral year.

Colorado is more vulnerable than it looks because of the paucity of Republican offensive opportunities -- if 2016 is a good Republican year, Colorado will be targeted with more offensive money than any other opportunity over the past few cycles, and Bennet will be very vulnerable. (Of course, in a good Democratic year, it might just fall off the list of competitive races, as states like North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Ohio -- perhaps even Pennsylvania -- will in a good Republican year).

(not to mention saying that Reid is "objectively" more vulnerable than a largely unknown senator deep on enemy turf)

Yeah, it's better to be largely unknown than hated.

To further add, Sestak was never exactly well-liked in the PADP anyway, and they don't really have anybody who could compete with him. I'm not counting him out.

I'm not counting him out either, but I'm not going to count him as a super-strong candidate that starts off favored against a respected incumbent Senator in a swing state.

*I was talking about Colorado, not PA.

*Her numbers against Hassan are irrelevant because she isn't going to run against Ayotte. They already have two compelling candidates besides her  and I'm confident that if either of them run they'll have a chance. Not entirely sure about Florida - Rubio already said he isn't running for both offices.

*Colorado 2014 was the worst case scenario with an incumbent - bad campaign against their best opponent in worse turnout, and even then Gardner only won by 2. If you think that a better campaigner who is facing a less competent opponent is more vulnerable than someone who has okay favorabilities and almost won in a wave year, you are more of a hack than Oldies.

*Do you really think that the DSCC won't be tying Kirk to the national GOP like they did with Scott Brown?

*And nobody's saying he's favored.

[SPC]

2014: "Democrats' worse case scenario in Colorado is a one-point win. Udall is a stronger candidate than Bennet and 2014 will not be as bad a year for Democrats as 2010. Udall will win."
2015: "Democrats' worse case scenario in Colorado is a two-point loss. Bennet is a stronger candidate than Udall and 2016 will not be as bad a year for Democrats as 2014. Bennet will win."