At what point does a senator become entrenched/untouchable?

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think we all know that at a certain point, Senators, even those serving in states where they have no business serving, become untouchable (or as I like to say, entrenched), meaning they will win by big margins even though if they were running as a challenger or in an open seat they wouldn't win. A perfect example would be the Jay Rockefeller. IRL the Republicans won the 2014 West Virginia Senate race 62-34, a massive landslide no doubt. But had the retiring incumbent Jay Rockefeller (who had been in the Senate since 1984) run for re-election he would have won handily, despite there being not much of a policy difference between Rockefeller and the actual Democrat nominee. Another example would be Susan Collins, despite representing a strongly Democratic state (I know it was close in 2016, but I'm gonna say it was an anomaly the way Montana was during 2008) she will very likely have her senate seat until she retires. My question is, at what point do you think a senator reaches this point of entrenchment/untouchableablity?

[TheSaint250]

Good approval ratings + favorable state.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Good approval ratings + favorable state.

I think you have it backwards, the good approval ratings come from being entrenched, rather then causing the entrenchment.

[Person Man]

Maybe they get lucky between a weak candidate and either their party is rebuilding the year they are up again. If their state is trending away, they become very good at earmarks.

[Gustaf]

I've seen enough supposedly entrenched incumbents fall that I'm a little skeptical of the designation, tbh.

[Don Vito Corleone]

I've seen enough supposedly entrenched incumbents fall that I'm a little skeptical of the designation, tbh.

Such As?

[Doimper]

Wasn't the impending GOP wave the reason Rockefeller retired?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It really depends on the Senator. Feingold won three times and still went down in 2010. Meanwhile Franken survived in the even worse cycle of 2014 despite barely scraping by in 2008.

[The Mikado]

I've seen enough supposedly entrenched incumbents fall that I'm a little skeptical of the designation, tbh.

Such As?

Mary Landrieu is one recent example. Three term US Senator loses by 11.

[Lemmiwinks]

And even if they aren't vulnerable in the general election, sometimes they can get picked off in the primary. Lugar is a good example.

[Vosem]

Never. Dick Lugar was popular enough not to get an opponent in 2006 but still lost the primary in 2012. Political climates and relevant issues shift, and entrenched/untouchable members often get behind the times.

Along the same lines, the two most vulnerable Senators in 2018 to primary challenge are probably Hatch and Menendez, both of whom seemed like pretty popular entrenched Senators six years ago.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Wasn't the impending GOP wave the reason Rockefeller retired?

He announced he was retiring in January of 2013, when he couldn't possibly have known the way 2014 would turn out. I think it was more to due with the fact that by 2014 he would be 73.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Also lolno, Rockefeller wouldn't have won in 2014.

Why do you say that? I was under the impression that him and Byrd could have kept winning re-election as long as they wanted to.

[SWE]

Wasn't the impending GOP wave the reason Rockefeller retired?

He announced he was retiring in January of 2013, when he couldn't possibly have known the way 2014 would turn out.

Maybe he saw the polls released in late 2012 that showed him losing reelection?

[MarkD]

I've seen enough supposedly entrenched incumbents fall that I'm a little skeptical of the designation, tbh.

Such As?

I would point to William Roth's (R-DE) loss to Tom Carper in 2000 as the quintessential example of how a Senator, whose last name is practically a household word, can lose re-election even after being in the Senate for 30 years. The five times Roth won election to the Senate, his margins were 59%, 56%, 55%, 62%, and 56%.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Also lolno, Rockefeller wouldn't have won in 2014.

Why do you say that? I was under the impression that him and Byrd could have kept winning re-election as long as they wanted to.

Capito announced against him in November of 2012. It would've been tossup at best.

I'm not saying this is true, but even if it is, a tossup is a lot better then what it turned out to be in the end

"I do think Harkin would've easily won again, and maybe Tim Johnson and Max Baucus, but those would've been dog fights. Baucus because I don't think Daines bothers to run for Senate if he's the incumbent."

Yeah, now that you mention it, Harkin and Grassely are pretty good examples of entrenchment, despite them both being pretty liberal and conservative (especially for a swing state) respectively, they would win by big margins almost every time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ted Stevens lost after 40 years.

[Don Vito Corleone]

I've seen enough supposedly entrenched incumbents fall that I'm a little skeptical of the designation, tbh.

Such As?

I would point to William Roth's (R-DE) loss to Tom Carper in 2000 as the quintessential example of how a Senator, whose last name is practically a household word, can lose re-election even after being in the Senate for 30 years. The five times Roth won election to the Senate, his margins were 59%, 56%, 55%, 62%, and 56%.

In retrospect, maybe untouchablability wasn't the right word, but becoming entrenched is definitely a thing.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Ted Stevens lost after 40 years.

Only just, after a major corruption scandal, that in itself is a statement on how entrenched he was, that even with a major corruption scandal (and he was charged just 8 day before the election), he only barely lost.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Wasn't the impending GOP wave the reason Rockefeller retired?

He announced he was retiring in January of 2013, when he couldn't possibly have known the way 2014 would turn out.

Maybe he saw the polls released in late 2012 that showed him losing reelection?

You and I both know that polls 2 years before an election mean nothing. You think a 6 term senator didn't know that?

[Don Vito Corleone]

It really depends on the Senator. Feingold won three times and still went down in 2010. Meanwhile Franken survived in the even worse cycle of 2014 despite barely scraping by in 2008. On the GOP side, compare

Compare what? Or did you hit post by in the middle of your sentence?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It really depends on the Senator. Feingold won three times and still went down in 2010. Meanwhile Franken survived in the even worse cycle of 2014 despite barely scraping by in 2008. On the GOP side, compare

Compare what? Or did you hit post by in the middle of your sentence?

Ugh, lol, I actually wanted to delete that. I assume there are GOP examples, but I'm too lazy to research them.

[SWE]

Wasn't the impending GOP wave the reason Rockefeller retired?

He announced he was retiring in January of 2013, when he couldn't possibly have known the way 2014 would turn out.

Maybe he saw the polls released in late 2012 that showed him losing reelection?

You and I both know that polls 2 years before an election mean nothing. You think a 6 term senator didn't know that?

If you've been in the Senate for nearly 3 decades and can't poll better than 44%, that certainly means something, regardless of when the polls are released.