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

[tpfkaw]

PA should trend more Republican in the future, given the continuing decline of private-sector unions and manufacturing, and the fact that it isn't really becoming any less white.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Vitter still holds the first place as most terrible Senator.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Gillibrand

Why do you hate pretty women Gramps?

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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.

No Phil, in looking at the long term registration numbers are far more important than a single election's result. Yes, the Dems got clobbered throughout PA---this year. Yet you seem to insist 2016 will be the exact same as 2010. Even then, Santorum 2.0 won an open seat running against a liberal (an image softened by Sestak's military background, but still) in the most successful GOP year in over half a century, but with less than 51% of the vote.

And you only have that huge registration advantage because of two of the best Democratic wave years we've seen in decades. It goes both ways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, don't play those games with me. I've never hinted that I think every year will be 2010. Any respected person here will tell you that I've been warning both sides that the good times don't last forever and can change within two years. When you're losing an argument, don't make stuff up. Thanks.

Holden and Altmire? If you think they are winning a Democratic primary for statewide office, you might want to do a bit more reading up on both of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And continue to ignore my Santorum 2000 example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ha! You're one to talk. You're chomping at the bit to see Toomey lose and have to come up with reasons why it's almost definite. You're losing that battle so you have to make stuff up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, he did have money problems but someone without money problems wasn't going to get the numbers he got out west. Such a person might have done better in the Southeast but not nearly enough to make this race a nail biter.

Some people need to get over this simple fact: there was a time in this state when Santorum was popular.

[nkpatel1279]

During the 2000 election 3 1994 Class Republican US Senators lost re-election.
Abraham-MI who lost to Stabenow(D)-a generic DEM challenger due to Gore coattails.
Grams-MN- an accidental rightwing conservative from DEM leaning swing state- Lost to Dayton.
Ashcroft-MO- lost to the recently deceased popular Governor Mel Carnahan.

The 2010 Class Freshman GOP US Senator who will lose re-election or be vulnerable to losing is
Kirk-IL lose re-election to a top tier or credible Generic DEM challenger ie Madigan,Giannoulias,Hynes,Quigley,Duncan,Chris Kennedy,Emanuel,Chico,Pappas,Dart,etc. DEM nominee will benifit from DEM presidential nominee coattails.
Blunt-MO vulnerable to a challenge against Governor Jay Nixon.
Toomey-PA and Johnson-WI are going to be in Spencer Abraham(MI-2000) category.  Can lose depending on the environment and who the DEM challenger is.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Gillibrand & McCain (assuming he doesn't retire)

That'll be hard considering Gillibrand won't be up in 2016. She'll either have lost in 2012 or will continue to 2020 2018

Edit: Apperently I'm just as bad as Gramps at getting the year senators will be up for re-election right

[Nhoj]

Gillibrand & McCain (assuming he doesn't retire)

That'll be hard considering Gillibrand won't be up in 2016. She'll either have lost in 2012 or will continue to 2020

She will be up in 2018. Unless we have 8 year terms now

[nkpatel1279]

Gillibrand is not going anywhere.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Gillibrand & McCain (assuming he doesn't retire)

That'll be hard considering Gillibrand won't be up in 2016. She'll either have lost in 2012 or will continue to 2020

She will be up in 2018. Unless we have 8 year terms now

Ok wise guys.......yes......and thanks Swedish Cheese.....I'm glad I'm not the only one horrible on those dates.......but I think nkpatel missed the point....it's not whether or not she's going anywhere.....the question was who do you want to see lose?

[Torie]

Gillibrand is not going anywhere.

Hey nk, why did you stop predicting anything about 3 months before the election? I looked for your predictions about what would happen in 2010 going back about 3 months, and you were AWOL.  I was just so disappointed. Did you just get too depressed or something?  You know, there is more to life than politics. Just a thought.

[Badger]

No Phil, in looking at the long term registration numbers are far more important than a single election's result. Yes, the Dems got clobbered throughout PA---this year. Yet you seem to insist 2016 will be the exact same as 2010. Even then, Santorum 2.0 won an open seat running against a liberal (an image softened by Sestak's military background, but still) in the most successful GOP year in over half a century, but with less than 51% of the vote.

And you only have that huge registration advantage because of two of the best Democratic wave years we've seen in decades. It goes both ways.

But it hasn't gone both ways, Phil. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC GOP gains in registration in the last cycle are nowhere near what the Dems built up in the previous two cycles. That's my point: after two Dem wave election and one GOP tsunami wave, the net Dem gain in registration during that time, even after this recent drubbing, is still staggering. Accordingly, that's still quite likely to be the same numbers Toomey has to deal with in 6 years, not to mention 60+ years of Democratic lean in elections as Nichlemn correctly noted....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, don't play those games with me. I've never hinted that I think every year will be 2010. Any respected person here will tell you that I've been warning both sides that the good times don't last forever and can change within two years. When you're losing an argument, don't make stuff up. Thanks.

Holden and Altmire? If you think they are winning a Democratic primary for statewide office, you might want to do a bit more reading up on both of them.

You say that, but then you keep going back to the current state of elected official strength post 11/2/10 to assert your point PA is a "purple" state with underestimated GOP strength (or overestimated Dem strength).

Could you elaborate on Holden and Altmire? Are you saying they're too moderate to win a statewide primary? Didn't hurt Casey or Klink (yes, I know Casey has the name, but he ran essentially unopposed for Pete's sake). I could see either having trouble with unions, however, especially after opposing HCR, but again writing them off seems at least as sweeping a statement as asserting Toomey will probably have a tough race in 6 years. Again, interested in your thoughts here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And continue to ignore my Santorum 2000 example.

Um, no. Santorum only won by just under 7 points against someone we agree was underfunded and, while he ran better than most Democrats today other than Altmire or Casey could expect to in the west, he didn't have the numerically much larger Dem realignment in the SE to rely on--which again is HIGHLY unlikely to reverse itself much in the next 6 years if 2010 didn't. Seriously, Phil, how can we realistically expect Toomey to carry Montgomery County, let alone by double digits? Or Chester by almost 2-1? The registration numbers have flipped dramatically Dem in those counties since 2000 and if 2010 didn't change that math much, little between now and 2016 will either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ha! You're one to talk. You're chomping at the bit to see Toomey lose and have to come up with reasons why it's almost definite. You're losing that battle so you have to make stuff up.

Again, no. Even taking out the worst Senators I'd like to see removed in 2016 who have little chance of losing (DeMint, Vitter, Coburn, etc.) Toomey isn't even first on my list of realistic targets I'd like to see out. OK, he's a close second behind Paul but still.....

I'm not saying Toomey losing is a definite. Never have. I AM disagreeing with you that there's any realistic likelihood he won't be among the most (top 3, if not top, baring some other GOP senator getting involved in a scandal) endangered GOP senators running for reelection in 2016. Sure the Dems could implode in the primary or '16 be a strongly GOP year also. But with even a half decent challenger in a non GOP wave year, Toomey will have to fight like hell to even match Santorum's 2000 showing of 52.4%. That's all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, he did have money problems but someone without money problems wasn't going to get the numbers he got out west. Such a person might have done better in the Southeast but not nearly enough to make this race a nail biter.

Some people need to get over this simple fact: there was a time in this state when Santorum was popularstomached.

Corrected. Showings of just over 49%, 52%, and <ahem> 41% are hardly indicative of "popularity".

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Lisa Murkowski

[CARLHAYDEN]

he is a very conservative republican representing a leaning blue state

Republican Governor and Lt. Governor
Republican Attorney General
Republican U.S. Senator
Republican majority (12 to 7) in the Congressional delegation
Republican majority (112 to 91. One of the highest majorities ever) in the State House
Republican majority (30 to 20) in the State Senate

Obama approval rating at 40%.

We can stop the "leaning blue state" talk now.

3)Pat Toomey(R-PA)-has a 50-50 chance of getting knocked off.

Six years out and you're already assigning odds of someone losing. Hilarious. Some people still haven't learned the lessons of the past four years.

By the way, repeat for me the odds placed on Blanche Lincoln's re-election about this time six years ago. Anyone that said she would lose by a 57% to 37% margin would have been banned from the forum for excessive stupidity.

Phil,

Its really pretty simple to explain this thread.

Most of the posters here don't even want to think about 2012.

[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.

[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.

[Keystone Phil]

No Phil, in looking at the long term registration numbers are far more important than a single election's result. Yes, the Dems got clobbered throughout PA---this year. Yet you seem to insist 2016 will be the exact same as 2010. Even then, Santorum 2.0 won an open seat running against a liberal (an image softened by Sestak's military background, but still) in the most successful GOP year in over half a century, but with less than 51% of the vote.

And you only have that huge registration advantage because of two of the best Democratic wave years we've seen in decades. It goes both ways.

But it hasn't gone both ways, Phil. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC GOP gains in registration in the last cycle are nowhere near what the Dems built up in the previous two cycles. That's my point: after two Dem wave election and one GOP tsunami wave, the net Dem gain in registration during that time, even after this recent drubbing, is still staggering. Accordingly, that's still quite likely to be the same numbers Toomey has to deal with in 6 years, not to mention 60+ years of Democratic lean in elections as Nichlemn correctly noted....

You only have that huge registration advantage because of wave years. Take them away and we're back at square one.

60+ years of Democratic lean in Presidential elections. You conveniently ignore Pennsylvania's long history of a) returning incumbents (especially to the Senate) and b) Republican Senators. You'll continue to ignore that though because it doesn't fit your argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...ok? That does't mean the Dems have a great bench.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And why do you think he ran unopposed? Klink benefitted from a crowded primary field. Holden and Altmire wouldn't have that advantage.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Analyzing a primary and a General are two very different things. Holden and Altmire's problems are just with healthcare; they are regarded as socially moderate (at best) or conservative (at worst). Those are huge road blocks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Klink being underfunded didn't matter (as I have pointed out and you continue to ignore). It would have been a wash, at best, with someone more liberal making up the numbers in the Southeast.

Toomey doesn't need to win those areas by double digits. Just barely winning them in a Presidential election year would mean lights out for any Democratic nominee. End of story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on things right now? Sure, he'd be a top target. I'm just not a fan of saying what the parties plan on doing six years out. Did the GOP ever expect Lincoln to not only be a top target but a sure win? How about Feingold as a top target? Things change. Pennsylvania likes incumbents. Pennsylvania has a history of electing Republican Senators. Don't try to give me a history lesson here then refuse to acknowledge facts that actually matter. You seriously told me that Pennsylvania is lean Dem because of how it votes in Presidential elections, totally ignoring the ass-kicking you received weeks ago and turning a blind eye to the historical advantages the GOP clearly has in Senate races here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His ratings after his most controversial statements in 2003 had him at mid 50s in the approval ratings. That's about where Casey is now.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

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.

[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.

[nkpatel1279]

The 2010 IL US Senate Race between Mark Kirk-R vs Alexi Giannoulias-D is similar to the 2002 MD Governors Race and the 2010 MA US Senate Race.  The Republican Nominee- Mark Kirk(2010 IL US Senate),Scott Brown(2010 MA US Senate),and Bob Ehrlich(2002 MD Governor) are Generic Republicans who campaigned as Moderates. The Democratic Nominee- Alexi Giannoulias(2010 IL US Senate), Martha Coakley(2010 MA US Senate),and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend(2002 MD Governor) are Generic Democrats who were unlikeable. They only won their previous Statewide Elections -2006 IL Treasurer(Giannoulias-D) and 2006 MA Attorney General(Coakley-D)- because of they were running against weak Generic Republicans. plus 2006 was a DEM wave year.
Mark Kirk-R would have lost in 2010 had IL Democrats nominated IL version of Ben Cardin. Looking at the MD US Senate Race in 2006. Republicans nominated their best candidate- Michael Steele-R despite being gaffe prone- Steele is a credible Republican candidate for the US Senate. Democrats nominated Ben Cardin who was the boring but safe choice.  Cardin won in 2006 by a 10 point margin-in a DEM wave. Had MD had a open US Senate race this year and Democrats nominated a weak or controversial Candidate ie Mfume,Glending,Townsend and Republicans nominated a mainstream Generic Republican Steele,Ehrlich,and Pipkin,- The Republican would narrowly win.  Ehrlich-MD lost re-election in 2006 aand rematch in 2010. Brown-MA is going to lose re-election in 2012 to a stronger DEM challenger. and Kirk-IL is going to lose re-election in 2016 to a stronger DEM challenger.

[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.

[nkpatel1279]

Is their a credible African American  DEM challenger against Kirk in 2016.

[-]

It's a tie between Blunt and Boozman.

[nkpatel1279]

Giannoulias-D a young inexperienced controversial liberal Democratic Nominee from Chicago who was an unsuccessful banker who had ties to organized crimes narrowly lose a high profile US Senate Race by a less than 2% margin against a Mainstream Moderate/Conservative Republican Nominee who is a 5 term US Congressman from a Democratic leaning Swing District from the Chicago Suburbs. factoring a National Republican wave, Corruption involving the recent former DEM Governor and unpopularity of current DEM Governor. and string Liberal third party challenger- LeAlan Jones.
If Kirk ran in 2004 and he ran against a weak DEM opponent ie Mosely Braun or Giannoulias. Kirk would have narrowly lost due to Kerry coattials.

[cinyc]

Without a doubt, Chuck Schumer, my arrogant, grandstanding Senator who does not reflect my political views or values at all.   It will not happen, though.

More realistically, Reid, Murray or Boxer.

[Keystone Phil]

Giannoulias-D a young inexperienced controversial liberal Democratic Nominee from Chicago

I remember when one of those became President.