Predict the 2014 Senate result

[Talleyrand]

In Alaska, Don Young attempts the jump to the Senate and is successful in tying Begich to Obama (Which won't be difficult to do). 

Don Young is one of the most powerfull Republicans in the House by virtue of his seniority. They don't call him Alaska's "Third Senator" for nothing. When you have been there for 40 years and have built up such power and influence, you aren't going to give it up just to receive a "titular promotion" that is actually an "effective demotion". He is also getting up there in years as well.

Don't forget he will be 81 in 2014.

[Talleyrand]

The likeliest scenario at this point in time:

This is a map based in fantasy, not reality.

The only state where you match the consensus is Alaska, yet somehow you think Oregon, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Minnesota are favored for GOP wins, while West Virginia and  South Dakota are favored D holds? Plus Hagan is probably favored in NC.

[Talleyrand]

Yeah, that's a Winfield/Politico map.

As I've said before, I think the GOP picks up AK/LA/SD/WV. Dems keep AR and NC because of weak Pub benches in those states. And I really hope Sununu doesn't go for Round 3 in NH and embarrass everyone except his immediate family.

I agree with you on this completely. The current likely scenario is that the Democrats lose LA, AK, SD, and WV, and the GOP retains all its seats. I think AR is lost if the GOP puts up Griffin, Darr, or Cotton, but it doesn't look like that will happen.

And yeah, MT and NC are Lean D holds now, not because of incumbent strength (though Baucus has an excellent organization and Hagan will be strongly backed, I'm guessing), but because of the awful GOP candidates in the states (I think Tim Fox/Steve Daines in MT could defeat Baucus and McCrory could defeat Hagan, but they'd have to start a campaign less than a year before election to their new positions, and McCrory obviously won't run).

[Talleyrand]

The likeliest scenario at this point in time:

This is a map based in fantasy, not reality.

The only state where you match the consensus is Alaska, yet somehow you think Oregon, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Minnesota are favored for GOP wins, while West Virginia and  South Dakota are favored D holds? Plus Hagan is probably favored in NC.

They're freshman Senators who replaced Republicans; how would that not make them vulnerable?

The GOP bench is West Virginia is one of the weakest in the nation.  It may be a strong Republican-leaning state in national elections, but it's about as heavily a Democratic-leaning, blue-leaning state as you get in state-level contests.  I don't see Tim Johnson retiring any time soon, since he didn't after his stroke.  And people there will probably vote for him as long as he wants his seat out of sympathy from that (although I don't wish him ill, it's just a fact.)  
New Hampshire and Colorado are still swing states, and a strong Republcan could win either seat.  (Although personally, I would rather see NH Republicans go more after beating Hassan in 2014.)  And Al Franken was never elected to the Senate anyway; he's such a nut that I don't see why the GOP wouldn't be foaming at the mouth from the prospect of beating him.  Although it's unlikely, I would love to see Tim Pawlenty run against him.  And in Colorado, I could easily see Jane Norton beating Mark Udall if she chooses to run.  

Granted, I think it's WAY too early to make any predictions, especially since ae don't know which incumbents (especially well-entrenches ones like Durbin, Levin, and Lautenberg) are running agan.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said they weren't vulnerable and they well could be. But it's just ridiculous to say they're favored to lose. Norton won't "easily beat" Udall and would be much likelier to lose. She was down ten points in the most recent poll and her performance in 2010 was pathetic, especially her loss to Ken Buck. Of course a strong Republican could conceivably win, but it would a huge uphill fight.

Same goes for New Hampshire. Shaheen's approval stands at +15, and she's leading her predecessor, her most credible challenger, by double digits already. If the best the GOP can come up with her is someone like Guinta, she should be even happier about her chances. New Hampshire definitely has a tendency to magnify national swings, but popular politicians with weak opponents can still defy them (see Lynch, John in 2010). The GOP's best chance here is a retirement, and even then, it would probably Tilt Democratic.

It doesn't matter if the GOP bench in West Virginia is terrible, because they got their best candidate in the race already, Shelley Moore Capito. She's the state's most popular politician besides Manchin and is already leading an entrenched five term incumbent in the polls. Once he retires, she'll easily dispatch whoever Dems send her way. And no, she's not going to be tea-bagged. The main opposition to her candidacy is from out of state and there is no credible challenger to beat her in a primary besides David McKinley (and I don't think he'll run), and he'd also win the general pretty easily.

Just because Johnson ran after his stroke in 2008 doesn't mean he'll run again. You've managed to totally omit the fact that he faced a joke opponent in the best year for the Democratic Party since Watergate. By 2014, he will be 68 years old and have three terms under his belt. He didn't seem too enthusiastic about running and was noncommittal in a recent statement. Mike Rounds, the state's decently popular former Governor, is already in, and both parties alike think he'll be tough to beat.

As for Minnesota, you're just letting your personal hatred of Franken get in the way of objective analysis. He has strong approvals, and has been a low-profile, hardworking, constituent-oriented Senator. The Minnesota GOP's best hope here is Paulsen, and I bet he doesn't give up his safe house seat. If the GOP's strategy is actually foaming at the prospect of beating him and intends to go after him for being such a crazy nut, they'll get thrashed.

As for NC and Oregon, you didn't reply, so I'm guessing you don't disagree with me.

[Talleyrand]

Norton was performing worse against Bennet than Buck was in polls at the time of the primary election. I bet she would have lost by a similar margin. She would have certainly not won easily, as Bennet's campaign was widely touted as excellent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

I'm glad you acknowledged your scenario is still unlikely, but it's still silly to suggest Merkley, Udall, Franken, and Shaheen are among the most vulnerable Senators, especially so when there are people like Landrieu, Rockefeller, and Johnson in far more precarious positions.