AZ-Senate-2010-Rasmussen: Napolitano (D) and McCain (R) even

[Tender Branson]

Napolitano-D: 46%
McCain-R: 45%

Other candidate: 5%
Undecided: 3%

...

Napolitano Job Approval Rating:

56% Excellent/Good
41% Fair/Poor

McCain Favorables:

57% Favorable
42% Unfavorable

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/arizona_2008_presidential_election

[AndrewTX]

I'm not too surprised, she's doing a good job as Governor.

 I have a feeling that if McCain drops out soon, he'll win re-election with about 55%

[TheresNoMoney]

Do people think McCain would run for Senate again in 2010 with the Republicans in the deep minority? Does he want to serve until death?

[AndrewTX]

I think McCain would. He seems like the type of person who wants to die in that seat. What the hell else is he going to do?

[Adlai Stevenson]

A Summer survey found Napolitano beating McCain 49%-36%.  If McCain does retire in 2010 I can imagine Janet Napolitano running for the seat, however, if he chooses to run for re-election I don't think she would challenge him somehow.  She or Attorney General Terry Goddard would be the strongest candidates for the seat (with or without McCain occupying it), I think Goddard may well plan to run for Governor in 2010 anyway though. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Do people think McCain would run for Senate again in 2010 with the Republicans in the deep minority? Does he want to serve until death?

Minority and majority matters little in the Senate.  Or, at least, much less than it does in the House.

And besides, "deep minority"?  Democrats will really have to scramble this cycle to get to the same 55-45 Republicans had a decade ago.

[Conan]

Do people think McCain would run for Senate again in 2010 with the Republicans in the deep minority? Does he want to serve until death?

Minority and majority matters little in the Senate.  Or, at least, much less than it does in the House.

And besides, "deep minority"?  Democrats will really have to scramble this cycle to get to the same 55-45 Republicans had a decade ago.

If the election were held today, the democrats would have at least a 55-45 majority. (and the GOP had that just last year.)

[CollectiveInterest]

Minority and majority matters little in the Senate.  Or, at least, much less than it does in the House.

And besides, "deep minority"?  Democrats will really have to scramble this cycle to get to the same 55-45 Republicans had a decade ago.

Democrats are on track to have 60 seats after the 2010 elections.

The Dems will probably have 57-58 seats after the 2008 elections.

Sixty is a magic number b/c the GOP won't have much ability to block the Dem agenda.

[TheresNoMoney]

And besides, "deep minority"?  Democrats will really have to scramble this cycle to get to the same 55-45 Republicans had a decade ago.

I think 55 seats is a conservative estimate. Even with that, the Republicans would be a pretty deep minority (like the Dems were after 2004).  And the Republicans will have quite a few vulnerable seats in 2010 as well.

For McCain, it doesn't look likely that the Repubs would gain back the majority anytime soon.

[Joe Republic]

And besides, "deep minority"?  Democrats will really have to scramble this cycle to get to the same 55-45 Republicans had a decade ago.

I have to agree with the responses before me.  Including Lieberman and Sanders, the Democrats already have a 51-seat majority.  Right now they are favored to pick up New Hampshire and Colorado, and are looking very good in Virginia and New Mexico too.  That'll give them a 55-45 majority, and won't necessarily be as much of a "scramble" as you say.

[Conan]

And besides, "deep minority"?  Democrats will really have to scramble this cycle to get to the same 55-45 Republicans had a decade ago.

I have to agree with the responses before me.  Including Lieberman and Sanders, the Democrats already have a 51-seat majority.  Right now they are favored to pick up New Hampshire and Colorado, and are looking very good in Virginia and New Mexico too.  That'll give them a 55-45 majority, and won't necessarily be as much of a "scramble" as you say.

VA, NH, CO are nearly definites as they stand right now. Oregon and MN are naturally competitive and NM looks like it will be too. Then there is ME and NE that could potentially be competitive along with probably another wild card.


So that's +3 = 54 and then I personally believe we're going to win at least two more, making that 56 seats.

[Speed of Sound]

No surprises here. McCain has really looked like an ass lately (4 months ago to 1 month ago, actually) and Napolitano is very popular there. Im actually a little taken back that Napolitano isnt winning! I guess McCain is just getting entrenchment bonuses, like fortified troops in Civ IV.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Well, let me rephrase then, since some of you bring up some good points—I believe that Democrats are really going to have to work to do better than 55-45, since Landrieu still needs to be defended and a lot of the "other" seats are hard sells.  (I mean, picking up Nebraska?  Really?)

[© tweed]

I'd put McCain's chances of running for re-election in 2010 at about 5%.

[Governor PiT]

McCain need to retire. Chris Simcox may run.

[TheresNoMoney]

I'd put McCain's chances of running for re-election in 2010 at about 5%.

You think after he loses the Republican primary, his motivation to stay in politics will be gone?

[Padfoot]

Well, let me rephrase then, since some of you bring up some good points—I believe that Democrats are really going to have to work to do better than 55-45, since Landrieu still needs to be defended and a lot of the "other" seats are hard sells.  (I mean, picking up Nebraska?  Really?)

Nebraska isn't as much of a longshot as you might think given the correct candidate (Kerrey).  Its still too far out to really call any of these races anyways.

[MarkWarner08]

Well, let me rephrase then, since some of you bring up some good points—I believe that Democrats are really going to have to work to do better than 55-45, since Landrieu still needs to be defended and a lot of the "other" seats are hard sells.  (I mean, picking up Nebraska?  Really?)

Nebraska isn't as much of a longshot as you might think given the correct candidate (Kerrey).  Its still too far out to really call any of these races anyways.

Until Kerrey announces his decision, the Nebraska Senate race remains in flux.

[Mr. Morden]

I think 55 seats is a conservative estimate. Even with that, the Republicans would be a pretty deep minority (like the Dems were after 2004).

It wasn't that deep of a minority, since they dug themselves out in just 2 years.  The point is that you can't really predict what the breakdown is going to be deep into McCain's potential 2010-16 term, even if you think the GOP is doomed during the first two years or so of that term.  That's too far out for any guesses we have today to have any meaning.

[© tweed]

I'd put McCain's chances of running for re-election in 2010 at about 5%.

You think after he loses the Republican primary, his motivation to stay in politics will be gone?

yes

[HardRCafé]

McCain need to retire. Chris Simcox may run.

Oh well thats settled then.  Safe Chris Simcox.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Well, let me rephrase then, since some of you bring up some good points—I believe that Democrats are really going to have to work to do better than 55-45, since Landrieu still needs to be defended and a lot of the "other" seats are hard sells.  (I mean, picking up Nebraska?  Really?)

Nebraska isn't as much of a longshot as you might think given the correct candidate (Kerrey).  Its still too far out to really call any of these races anyways.

There is little doubt in my mind that Kerrey:
(1) Would get absolutely thumped by Johanns.
(2) Isn't going to run, mainly because of (1).