Why have so few incumbent Democratic Senators lost reelection?

[Mister Mets]

While pondering the landscape for the 2014 Senate elections, I've noticed one thing: Democratic incumbents have fared rather well in the last five Senate election cycles.

Republicans Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike Dewine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennslyvania, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and George Allen all lost their 2006 bids for reelection. Ted Stevens of Alaska, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Gordon Smith of Oregon all lost their 2008 bids for reelection. And Scott Brown lost his 2012 bid for reelection in Massachusetts.

On the Democratic side, Senate Majority Leader Tom Dachsle lost his 2004 bid for reelection. Both Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas lost their 2010 bids for reelection. And that's it.

In five cycles, twelve Republicans lost reelection bids, compared to three Democrats.

Why do you guys think that is?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Most vulnerable Democrats in recent years have just retired.

[Maxwell]

Most vulnerable Democrats in recent years have just retired.

This by far.

You've got Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Byron Dorgan, Roland Burris (doesn't really count, but oh well), Evan Bayh, all retiring probably based on polling data most likely.

[Talleyrand]

Most vulnerable Democrats in recent years have just retired.

This by far.

You've got Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Byron Dorgan, Roland Burris (doesn't really count, but oh well), Evan Bayh, all retiring probably based on polling data most likely.

I think Evan Bayh would have won, maybe even by double digits, but the others would have been toast. He's an institution in the state and polls showed him doing well against the lackluster Dan Coats IIRC.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Most vulnerable Democrats in recent years have just retired.

Or been saved by Republican stupidity.

[old timey villain]

A lot of those senators who were potentially vulnerable (Claire McCaskill) were up against horrible opponents, so that's a reflection of the larger ideological gap between the parties.

The Democratic party also seems to be more ok with each senator tailoring their views to fit their state, even if it goes against mainstream Democratic views. McCaskill bragged about being the least partisan senator, Tester played up his support of gun rights, Manchin fiercely defended coal. You don't see as many Republicans in purple states or blue states openly defying party doctrine these days, which makes them more vulnerable.

[Mehmentum]

Don't forget Lugar who lost in the Indiana primary, are there any other R (or D, for that matter) incumbents who were succefully primaried?

2006 and 2008 were both wave years so its expected that the Democrats did well, but in 2010, the Ds could have lost a lot more, thouhg a lot of that has more to do with the Republicans than the Democrats. 

2012 was the real test.  It was pretty neutral environment and the Democrats hit it out of the park.  Only loosing 1 previously held seat and flipping 2 others away from the Republicans (not to mention replacing Lieberman).  So the Democrats actually did BETTER than they did in the 2006 landslide.

[Miles]

Don't forget Lugar who lost in the Indiana primary, are there any other R (or D, for that matter) incumbents who were succefully primaried?

Specter, Bennett and Murkowski.

[Napoleon]

The Democratic incumbents up until 2006 also tended to be older and more established. People like John Breaux chose to retire.

[Smash255]

Combination of factors.  Some of the more vulnerable Dem Senators have chosen to retire that hasn't happened as much with the GOP.  Also other vulnerable Dem Senators have been saved by stupidity among opponents and/or bats*** crazy opponents, and a few more bats*** crazy Senators on the GOP side where the voters just said enough.

[The Night Owlditor]

Combination of factors.  Some of the more vulnerable Dem Senators have chosen to retire that hasn't happened as much with the GOP.  Also other vulnerable Dem Senators have been saved by stupidity among opponents and/or bats*** crazy opponents, and a few more bats*** crazy Senators on the GOP side where the voters just said enough.

This.

The Tea Partification of the Republican Party has moved the party so far to the right that they are simply unelectable to statewide elected offices, with a few exceptions in solidly red states like Utah (Mike Lee) and Texas (Ted Cruz).

Election 2010 was a good test of that. Republicans were poised to pick up Delaware with Mike Castle but opted to support a far-right witch. They also had a good chance to pick up Nevada before they nominated the Second Amendment remedies nut case. Same can be said for Colorado where asshat Ken Buck received the nomination over the "establishment" candidate Jane Norton because he "doesn't wear high heels."

Democrats owe the Tea Party a big thank you. To the Tea Party, in the words of Sarah Palin to the Alaska Independence Party, "Keep up the good work!"

[Maxwell]

Most vulnerable Democrats in recent years have just retired.

This by far.

You've got Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Byron Dorgan, Roland Burris (doesn't really count, but oh well), Evan Bayh, all retiring probably based on polling data most likely.

I think Evan Bayh would have won, maybe even by double digits, but the others would have been toast. He's an institution in the state and polls showed him doing well against the lackluster Dan Coats IIRC.

Pence might've made a run for it, and he was leading Bayh by 3 to 5 points.

[Mister Mets]

Most vulnerable Democrats in recent years have just retired.

I don't know if it's just that.

Reid and Bennet, two of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents of their cycle, won in 2010. Democrats in Montana and Missouri won reelection bids in 2012.

[AndrewTX]

Most vulnerable Democrats in recent years have just retired.

Or been saved by Republican stupidity.

This is exactly why that number is so high for Republican defeats. Republicans have twice blown chances at a Senate majority by having idiots running versus people who can win the race.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

ACORN

[Paleobrazilian]

Most vulnerable Democrats in recent years have just retired.

I don't know if it's just that.

Reid and Bennet, two of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents of their cycle, won in 2010. Democrats in Montana and Missouri won reelection bids in 2012.

Those four democrats faced the sort of nutters that took the GOP down to its knees, that's why they won.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The Tea Partification of the Republican Party has moved the party so far to the right that they are simply unelectable to statewide elected offices, with a few exceptions in solidly red states like Utah (Mike Lee) and Texas (Ted Cruz).

And Wisconsin.

Election 2010 was a good test of that. Republicans were poised to pick up Delaware with Mike Castle They also had a good chance to pick up Nevada before they nominated the Second Amendment remedies nut case.

The Tea Party candidate didn't win in Nevada because of the second amendment. She won because the establishment Republican was rightfully destroyed by a bizarre chicken bartering scheme pertaining to healthcare.

[pbrower2a]

Feingold and Lincoln lost in 2010, a wave election.

2010 brought the crazy out in the GOP, and in 2012 the Republicans thought that they could win with it again.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's so much more popular to be a Democrat, even when Republcans are doing well.  That's why.