List Senators up in 2016 from most vulnerable to least vulnerable

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

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.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

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.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

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.