What Senator in 2016 do you most want to see lose?

[Ogre Mage]

It's funny that nkpatel should mention it, because I was wondering if the Dems could get Michelle to pull a Hillary and run against Kirk in 2016.  It probably won't happen, though.  I don't think she is interested in politics.

Patty Murray - again. I will probably be waiting patiently for her retirement for the balance of my sojourn on this mortal coil.

I hope Murray stays on to become (the first female) chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.    lol at all the mess we heard about about her losing.  I knew better.

[Ogre Mage]

While I hesitate to comment on future elections, if we assume a neutral political environment and no major scandal, I would consider Toomey in 2016 to be about as vulnerable as McCaskill in 2012.  Both are narrow winners in wave elections which strongly favored their party.  Both were in true swing states which under normal conditions very slightly favored the opposite party.  And both faced opponents who were decent candidates and not in any way damaged goods, but were kneecapped by a terribly unfavorable environment.

However, I think Mark Kirk is more likely to be highly vulnerable than either Toomey or McCaskill.

[Ogre Mage]

While I hesitate to comment on future elections, if we assume a neutral political environment and no major scandal, I would consider Toomey in 2016 to be about as vulnerable as McCaskill in 2012.  Both are narrow winners in wave elections which strongly favored their party.  Both were in true swing states which under normal conditions very slightly favored the opposite party.  And both faced opponents who were decent candidates and not in any way damaged goods, but were kneecapped by a terribly unfavorable environment.

However, I think Mark Kirk is more likely to be highly vulnerable than either Toomey or McCaskill.

Kirk is DOA in 2016, considering he barely won in the best year for Republicans in a generation against a terrible candidate (and he won almost no crossover support from Democrats; pretty much the only reason he won is he overwhelmingly carried independents). Unless Democrats come up with a worse candidate than Alexi, Kirk is a one-termer.

He presumably would have won by a larger margin if it wasn't for his military service controversy, which shouldn't be an issue in 2016 (although it might indicate that he could get himself into trouble again in the future). I agree he'll have a fight on his hands, but he has managed to hold a district only modestly less Democratic than the state as a whole for a decade, including two Democratic wave years. If he keeps up a moderate voting record, he'll have a good shot.

It took a massive GOP wave and an opponent who was even bigger damaged goods than himself for Kirk to win.  While controversy over Kirk's lies about his military record may have faded, once you make a bad first impression it is hard to change.  Polls show voters see him negatively.  And as for Mr. Kirk walking the tightrope between his home-state constituents and the Tea Party who will be watching his every move, good luck with that.  A damaged goods, first-term Republican running statewide in a solidly Democratic state during a Presidential election cycle (2016) has the look of an incumbent who will be a top target for Democrats in that cycle.