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

[Nichlemn]

I wonder if Murkowski will become the Republican Lieberman.

[Nichlemn]

Where's the deep bench? Your team was annihilated here! And how can you continue to say it's "at least" light blue? Get a clue, dude.

Republicans did well pretty much everywhere in 2010. When we speak of the lean of the state, we mean (or at least we should) relative to the national average. And relative to the national average, the results in PA were quite typical.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rings eerily of the "Hawaiians always re-elect their incumbents" "rule". Toomey is a lot more conservative than most (all?) PA Senators have been, so history may not be a reliable guide.

[Nichlemn]

Where's the deep bench? Your team was annihilated here! And how can you continue to say it's "at least" light blue? Get a clue, dude.

Republicans did well pretty much everywhere in 2010. When we speak of the lean of the state, we mean (or at least we should) relative to the national average. And relative to the national average, the results in PA were quite typical.

We were the top state (along with Ohio and New York) for GOP House pickups. We picked up a Senate seat. We made huge gains in our State Legislature. I think that at least offsets the idea that we're "lean" anything.

That's mainly because of weak Democratic incumbents from 2006 and 2008 losing. The House delegation has seen no net change since 2004, when Kerry was winning the state. That Senate seat was already GOP in 2004 anyway.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Might not be but it's too early to predicting (and to be predicting with near certainty!) what the hell will happen six years from now.

Santorum was conservative in 2000. He won and ran ahead of Al Gore that year. "But, Phil, that was before Santorum got controversial." Well, again, no one is expecting Toomey to go that route.
[/quote]

It's never too early to make predictions (though I agree you can't make predictions with great certainty). I actually agree with you that Toomey probably isn't as vulnerable as many here make him out to be, since the "craziness" of statements or a voting record is probably more important than how right-wing (or left-wing as the case may be) it is.

[Nichlemn]

That's mainly because of weak Democratic incumbents from 2006 and 2008 losing. The House delegation has seen no net change since 2004, when Kerry was winning the state. That Senate seat was already GOP in 2004 anyway.

So it's back to being a total swing state at the very least (not a "lean Dem" state at the very least).

It hasn't been a "total" swing state for a long time now. It's leaned Democratic relative to the national margin in every Presidential election since 1948 (which is in fact the longest run of any state). Granted, it's always been by a small to moderate margin, but the tilt is there.

I can see PA becoming a true swing state if the West continues to trend Democratic though, making PA more Republican by comparison.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could just as easily argue that a week before the election is too early to make predictions because of everything that could happen between then and election day. Obviously, a lot more can happen in two years. That doesn't mean that predictions are complete craps shoots, they just have more variance. If they were craps shoots, then predictions years out would be no better than a monkey randomly pulling a "D" or "R" lever for each race. Clearly that's not true - there is a consistent pattern in election results.

[Nichlemn]

It hasn't been a "total" swing state for a long time now. It's leaned Democratic relative to the national margin in every Presidential election since 1948 (which is in fact the longest run of any state). Granted, it's always been by a small to moderate margin, but the tilt is there.

Again, we don't just judge states on how they vote in Presidential elections.

Sure, but it's a big aspect and is most important when we're talking about "swing states" (seeing that Senate elections behave somewhat more independently of each other). If we go by Senate results, Republicans have done well but crucially they've typically been moderate Republicans. The swinginess of the state overall doesn't really matter for House results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right...but obviously more can happen within six years. Am I really having this argument?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the pattern here clearly doesn't follow what you're saying but no doubt that you'll continue saying it anyway because it favors what you want.[/quote]

The point is, citing examples such as Lincoln's landslide defeat as reasons for predictions years out having no value is specious. It is an argument against precise predictions, but saying "Toomey is likely to be one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents in 2016" is not precise. It simply recognises that all else being equal, highly conservative candidates in moderate states are more vulnerable than average.

[Nichlemn]

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.