2018 Senate Rankings

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

These are not official at this time (i.e. no google doc is being created yet). Just a rough layout.

Safe D (10): VT, MD, DE, CT, RI, MA, NY, WA, HI, CA
Likely D (6): MI, NM, NJ, ME, MN, VA
Lean D (5): MT, WI, PA, FL, NV (D+1)
Toss-Up (3): ND, WV, AZ
Lean R (2): IN (even), OH (R+1)
Likely R (3): UT, AL, MO (R+2)
Safe R (5): MS, TN, NE, TX, WY

*Old Post, See Update on Page 5*

[Xing]

Not a bad list, though I think it's a bit too soon to call MO Likely R, since we don't know who McCaskill's opponent will be, and she could face a favorable environment. This early, I wouldn't move it past Lean R. Also, I'd definitely move CA to Safe D.

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

^ My standard for Safe D/R is pretty high. CA's YUGE dem bench + top-two primary (I expect Feinstein to retire), and the possibility of a Matheson run in Utah is enough to justify some caution at this very early juncture.

[Heisenberg]

^ My standard for Safe D/R is pretty high. CA's YUGE dem bench + top-two primary (I expect Feinstein to retire), and the possibility of a Matheson run in Utah is enough to justify some caution at this very early juncture.

I agree with you on those. Sooner or later Republicans will win some statewide office (probably AG, SoS, or one of the other downballot row offices) due to the top-two. Can't see it happening for US Senate, but this early on it's good to be cautious.

[coloradocowboi]

I agree with all of this, except maybe OH tilts D just because of Sherrod Brown's good standing in Mahoning and rural areas.

ND as tossup might also be a tad bit optimistic for Heidi Heitkamp. I hope not, but it's hard to see a way she gets out of this.

[publicunofficial]

>California
>Likely D

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

>California
>Likely D

The top two primary is a ticking time bomb.

[Maxwell]

lol Utah ain't "likely" R.

[Xing]

I doubt that California is ever going to end up with two Republicans in a Senate race. Maybe a different down ballot race that won't get as much attention, but it would be a stretch for that to happen for a Senate race. Not only would the Democratic vote have to be very evenly fractured among many different candidates, but two Republicans would have to consolidate enough support to overtake every Democrat. It's hard to see two Republicans getting that much of the vote in a primary, and I doubt there wouldn't be at least one Democrat who would stand out from the crowd enough to at least get more than one of the Republicans. It's about as likely as a run-off between two Democrats occurring in Louisiana (for a Senate race).

[publicunofficial]

I doubt that California is ever going to end up with two Republicans in a Senate race. Maybe a different down ballot race that won't get as much attention, but it would be a stretch for that to happen for a Senate race. Not only would the Democratic vote have to be very evenly fractured among many different candidates, but two Republicans would have to consolidate enough support to overtake every Democrat. It's hard to see two Republicans getting that much of the vote in a primary, and I doubt there wouldn't be at least one Democrat who would stand out from the crowd enough to at least get more than one of the Republicans. It's about as likely as a run-off between two Democrats occurring in Louisiana (for a Senate race).

It's way more likely that it's another D-on-D race than an R-on-R.

I'm assumng Wulfric is only considering the possibility of it being R-on-R if it's an open seat. If he thinks that's a possibility with Feinstein running then hahahaha no.

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

I said I expect Feinstein to retire. Obviously if she runs the risk is gone.

[Kingpoleon]

I doubt that California is ever going to end up with two Republicans in a Senate race. Maybe a different down ballot race that won't get as much attention, but it would be a stretch for that to happen for a Senate race. Not only would the Democratic vote have to be very evenly fractured among many different candidates, but two Republicans would have to consolidate enough support to overtake every Democrat. It's hard to see two Republicans getting that much of the vote in a primary, and I doubt there wouldn't be at least one Democrat who would stand out from the crowd enough to at least get more than one of the Republicans. It's about as likely as a run-off between two Democrats occurring in Louisiana (for a Senate race).

So this doesn't sound likely to you?:
Kevin Faulconer: 25%
Jeff Denham: 17%
Linda Sanchez: 15%
Fabian Nunez: 14%
Eric Garcetti: 11%
Hilda Solis: 10%
Others: 8%

I really don't get how this can sound so complicated to people.

[Xing]

I doubt that California is ever going to end up with two Republicans in a Senate race. Maybe a different down ballot race that won't get as much attention, but it would be a stretch for that to happen for a Senate race. Not only would the Democratic vote have to be very evenly fractured among many different candidates, but two Republicans would have to consolidate enough support to overtake every Democrat. It's hard to see two Republicans getting that much of the vote in a primary, and I doubt there wouldn't be at least one Democrat who would stand out from the crowd enough to at least get more than one of the Republicans. It's about as likely as a run-off between two Democrats occurring in Louisiana (for a Senate race).

So this doesn't sound likely to you?:
Kevin Faulconer: 25%
Jeff Denham: 17%
Linda Sanchez: 15%
Fabian Nunez: 14%
Eric Garcetti: 11%
Hilda Solis: 10%
Others: 8%

I really don't get how this can sound so complicated to people.

It's not complicated, but it's not likely either. I doubt that would happen, unless no campaigning took place, and Democratic leaders were also evenly divided on which candidate to back. No doubt, several Democratic leaders would agree on at least one of those candidates, so it wouldn't be the case that each candidate would get an equal amount of funds. Thus, at least one would likely end up with an advertising advantage, and have more name recognition as a result. I can predict with 99.9999% confidence that this will not be an R vs. R race, and the Democrats will hold it. If anyone wants to challenge me on that, be my guest.

[publicunofficial]

I doubt that California is ever going to end up with two Republicans in a Senate race. Maybe a different down ballot race that won't get as much attention, but it would be a stretch for that to happen for a Senate race. Not only would the Democratic vote have to be very evenly fractured among many different candidates, but two Republicans would have to consolidate enough support to overtake every Democrat. It's hard to see two Republicans getting that much of the vote in a primary, and I doubt there wouldn't be at least one Democrat who would stand out from the crowd enough to at least get more than one of the Republicans. It's about as likely as a run-off between two Democrats occurring in Louisiana (for a Senate race).

So this doesn't sound likely to you?:
Kevin Faulconer: 25%
Jeff Denham: 17%
Linda Sanchez: 15%
Fabian Nunez: 14%
Eric Garcetti: 11%
Hilda Solis: 10%
Others: 8%

I really don't get how this can sound so complicated to people.

The California GOP getting TWO strong candidates to run, while the best Democrats can come up with is Linda Sanchez? Yeah, no, that's not likely.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

(assuming nothing ~*~drastic~*~)

safe d (12): ca, ct, de, hi, ma, md, nm, ny, ri, vt, va, wa
likely d (4): me, mi, mn, nj
lean d (4): fl, nd, pa, wi
tossup (5): mo, mt, nv, oh, wv
lean r (2): az, in
likely r (2): tx, ut
safe r (4): ms, tn, ne, wy

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

Moving ND and WV to Lean R to acknowledge Trump cabinet possibilities. Either would move to Likely R after the senate confirms such a pick.

[Klartext89]

Safe D (9): VT, MD, DE, CT, RI, MA, NY, WA, HI

Likely D (4): NM, NJ, ME, CA

Lean D (3): MI, VA, MN

Toss-Up (5): OH, MT, WI, PA, FL

Lean R (4): AZ, NV, ND (R+1), WV (R+2)

Likely R (2): IN (R+3), MO (R+4)

Safe R (6): MS, TN, NE, TX, WY, UT

[Sir Mohamed]

As of now: (but it depends on the Trumpster’s approval and the respective candidates)

Safe D (10) VT, MD, DE, CT, RI, MA, NY, WA, HI, CA
Likely D (7) MI, NM, NJ, ME, MN, VA, PA
Lean D (3) WI, FL
Toss-Up (4) OH, NV, MT, WV
Lean R (3) AZ, IN, MO
Likely R (1) ND
Safe R (6): MS, TN, NE, TX, WY, UT

[Mike67]

These are not official at this time (i.e. no google doc is being created yet). Just a rough layout.

Safe D (9): VT, MD, DE, CT, RI, MA, NY, WA, HI
Likely D (7): MI, NM, NJ, ME, CA, MN, VA
Lean D (4): MT, WI, PA, FL
Toss-Up (2): OH, NV
Lean R (4): AZ, IN (R+1), ND (R+2), WV (R+3)
Likely R (2): UT, MO (R+4)
Safe R (5): MS, TN, NE, TX, WY

Very good list

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Safe D-ME, VT, RI, NY, MD, DE, WA, CA, HI
Likely D-MA, NJ
Lean D-CT, MN, NM
Toss Up-VA, MI, NV, MT
Lean R-PA, FL, AZ
Likely R-WI, IN, OH,
Safe R-WV, MS, TX, TN, ND, NE, MO, WY, UT

[Figueira]

Moving ND and WV to Lean R to acknowledge Trump cabinet possibilities. Either would move to Likely R after the senate confirms such a pick.

ND would be likely R if she accepts since I can't see her having trouble in the Senate. As for WV, remember that Justice would get to appoint someone, so that seat is still vaguely winnable even without Manchin. Lean R would be a good rating in that event. I'd call it Tilt D if Manchin stays put.

[KingSweden]

MT, I'd slide PA and FL to Lean D and ND to lean R. Otherwise I agree

[catographer]

Safe D: CA, WA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, MA, RI, CT, HI, NM, VT (I), ME (I)
Likely D: MI, WI, MO, PA, WV, VA, MN
Lean D: OH, FL, MT
Toss-up: IN, MO, NV, ND
Lean R: AZ
Likely R: _
Safe R: TN, TX, UT, WY, NE, MS

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Special Election
Alabama:Safe R

90% Safe
60% Likley
30% Lean
Yellow Tossup
Green Independent
Grey No Election

[Heisenberg]

Here comes my analysis (using MT Treasurer's format).
Arizona - Lean R. This could flip, and is more likely to do so without Flake. Still, I anticipate lower Latino turnout, and I think Flake is favored in both the primary and the general right now.
California - Safe D. Only flips if Feinstein retires leading to an R vs. R general election. Too unlikely to warrant a Likely D rating.
Connecticut - Safe D. Nothing to see here.
Delaware - Safe D. Ken Simpler would be the ideal Republican candidate for a Federal race, but he's better off trying for the House seat in 2020 if Trump is popular, since he won't have to risk losing Treasurer in a presidential year.
Florida - Lean D. Hard to see Nelson lose, but this will be his first tough race in 18 years. If Scott wins, it won't be by more than 2%. But he is wealthy, has Trump ties and the right background to pull an upset if Trump is popular.
Hawaii - Safe D. Nothing to see here.
Indiana - Likely R. Donnelly is in big trouble. Just about everything is going against him.
Maine - Likely D. Can't say Angus King is safe, but he sure is favored.
Maryland - Safe D. Nothing to see here.
Massachusetts - Safe D. Nothing to see here.
Michigan - Lean D. Debbie Stabenow is favored, and will easily defeat someone like Rogers or Amash, both being terrible fits for the state. Benishek, being a yooper, is the ideal candidate for Republicans, since he should do great in the rural areas and has blue collar appeal that helps in Oakland and Macomb Counties. At the best he'll probably Warner Stabenow, but it puts him in a good position to win the other seat in 2020 if Trump is popular.
Minnesota - Safe D. It would only have a chance at flipping if Klobuchar didn't run, but she passed on the Governor's race so she'll likely run for reelection.
Mississippi - Safe R. Nothing to see here.
Missouri - Likely R. Almost Safe R with Ann Wagner. Billy Long and Vicky Hartzler strike me as likely to say something stupid. Sam Graves.... please no, he has too much baggage.
Montana - Tossup. Zinke being picked for Interior really hurts Republican chances. But Buttrey or Fox would make great challengers.
Nebraska - Safe R. Nothing to see here.
Nevada - Tossup. Heller got really lucky in 2012 with Berkley as his opponent. He underperformed the polls (like most NV Republicans do) and Reid's strong turnout machine was just too much to overcome this year. But Republicans still did great in NV in 2006, and that state especially sees R-friendly midterm electorates, so that gives me some hope.
New Jersey - Safe D. Maybe a strong Republican could Democrats spend money here, but with Trump winning, this seat is not flipping.
New Mexico - Safe D. Susana Martinez won't leave her sister. Maaaybe Richard Berry could force Democrats to spend money, but even he would lose.
New York - Safe D. Nothing to see here.
North Dakota - Lean R. I feel good about this one, especially given Cramer's strong performances in his House races, but Heitkamp being considered for the Trump cabinet will probably make this race harder. Polls would be helpful.
Ohio - Tossup. Obviously Safe R with Kasich, but he's almost certain not to run. The possibility of a primary showdown scares me, and Brown seems pretty savvy, even though this is an easy pickup on paper.
Pennsylvania - Lean D. Swing state, strong bench, but I can easily see, say, a Kelly vs. Dent primary turning into a Trump vs. anti-Trump proxy war, which would damage the nominee and lead to a divided electorate. The state does have a strong GOP Senate tradition, and Casey won by an underwhelming margin last time, though.
Rhode Island - Safe D. Nothing to see here. 
Tennessee - Safe R. Nothing to see here.
Texas - Safe R. Trump was a terrible fit for Texas, and Cruz seems to remain popular. Also, the Straight Party option helps Republicans a lot.
Utah - Likely R. Safe R with Hatch, but I put Likely since if he does retire, wild things could happen (like a three way race).
Vermont - Safe D. Nothing to see here.
Virginia - Likely D. Kaine should win. He is now nationally known, and remains popular in the state he delivered for Clinton. Sadly, Virginia is trending away from the Republicans pretty quickly. The GOP remains capable of winning statewide, but definitely not in a Trump midterm.
Washington - Safe D. Nothing to see here.
West Virginia - Tossup. Manchin would be a slight underdog against McKinley or Jenkins but if his opponent is Mooney, he's not only favored, but he's also getting my endorsement (not that that even matters of course).
Wisconsin - Tossup. Arguably the marquee race. Duffy (assuming he runs) is the ideal candidate: Represents WI-07, so he should be fine in the rural areas (though Baldwin will probably still have some appeal for whatever reason), and he's also the type who should outperform Trump in WOW. If Clinton won, Duffy would be favored, but in a Trump midterm, Baldwin cannot be counted out.
Wyoming - Safe R. Nothing to see here.