What 2014 Senate Races were winnable for the Democrats?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I think Montana, West Virginia, and South Dakota were essentially GOP locks so there was no way they could have won those. Arkansas was just simply too anti-Obama to re-elect Pryor so there was no way he could have won that even if 2014 was a neutral or even slightly D-leaning year. This makes it 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. I think Louisiana was winnable, but Landrieu lost by 12 points because the Democratic party abandoned her because they already lost the majority and saw no use in winning the runoff. I think she could have had a chance of winning if it was a neutral year and more resources were sent her way, as she survived difficult challenges in 2002 and 2008 as well. Iowa and Alaska were winnable IMO and certainly could have went D if it was a neutral year especially Alaska which was rather close. Finally, NC and Colorado would have certainly went Dem in a neutral year even though it would have been narrow. As a result, I think Democrats could have won the Senate in 2014 if it was a neutral year, but it would have been very close either 51-49 or 50-50 depending on Louisiana, and Iowa would likely be the tipping point in that situation.

[Pericles]

NC, CO and AK were very close so with a slightly better campaign in the states and/or better national environment they could have gone the other way. That would bring it to 51-49. GA wasn't winnable even if it looks competitive, because it is so inelastic. IA might have been winnable if Braley wasn't such a terrible candidate and Ernst ran a great campaign that year too, so effectively Democrats were an 8% margin away from keeping the Senate. LA was too Republican to actually be won again by Democrats. The other states were too Republican to go the other way, though in a Romney midterm with them having incumbents up for re-election they would have been winnable. I'm not sure if Kansas was ever flippable given the margin and its partisanship. Maybe Orman would have won if he promised to caucus with Senate Republicans, but that could have just depressed his vote without growing it much. So 50-50 was probably the best-case scenario for Democrats in a second Obama midterm.

[Roll Roons]

NC, CO and AK were very close so with a slightly better campaign in the states and/or better national environment they could have gone the other way. That would bring it to 51-49. GA wasn't winnable even if it looks competitive, because it is so inelastic. IA might have been winnable if Braley wasn't such a terrible candidate and Ernst ran a great campaign that year too, so effectively Democrats were an 8% margin away from keeping the Senate. LA was too Republican to actually be won again by Democrats. The other states were too Republican to go the other way, though in a Romney midterm with them having incumbents up for re-election they would have been winnable. I'm not sure if Kansas was ever flippable given the margin and its partisanship. Maybe Orman would have won if he promised to caucus with Senate Republicans, but that could have just depressed his vote without growing it much. So 50-50 was probably the best-case scenario for Democrats in a second Obama midterm.

From what I gather, Hagan and Begich didn't run bad campaigns. They lost because they were running in right-leaning states in a horrible environment for Democrats, so even though the margins were narrow, I'm not sure what either could have done differently to actually win. Udall was a completely different story. He would have easily won a third term last month if he'd been smarter and not run a s**ty single-issue campaign about abortion.

[Calthrina950]

NC, CO and AK were very close so with a slightly better campaign in the states and/or better national environment they could have gone the other way. That would bring it to 51-49. GA wasn't winnable even if it looks competitive, because it is so inelastic. IA might have been winnable if Braley wasn't such a terrible candidate and Ernst ran a great campaign that year too, so effectively Democrats were an 8% margin away from keeping the Senate. LA was too Republican to actually be won again by Democrats. The other states were too Republican to go the other way, though in a Romney midterm with them having incumbents up for re-election they would have been winnable. I'm not sure if Kansas was ever flippable given the margin and its partisanship. Maybe Orman would have won if he promised to caucus with Senate Republicans, but that could have just depressed his vote without growing it much. So 50-50 was probably the best-case scenario for Democrats in a second Obama midterm.

From what I gather, Hagan and Begich didn't run bad campaigns. They lost because they were running in right-leaning states in a horrible environment for Democrats, so even though the margins were narrow, I'm not sure what either could have done differently to actually win. Udall was a completely different story. He would have easily won a third term last month if he'd been smarter and not run a s**ty single-issue campaign about abortion.

For the rest of his life, Udall will always be known as "Mark Uterus". Gardner's win in 2014 truly was a fluke, and this is further reinforced by the fact that Hickenlooper managed to win reelection on the same ballot as Udall.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Colorado: The state was obviously moving left and Udall’s campaign was terrible

Iowa: Braley almost went out of his way to look like the conservative stereotype of a coastal elitist Democrat who doesn’t understand or care about the rest of the country. Yeah, he lost by a lot, but Obama had Kurt carried the state two years prior, and most prognosticators early on thought Democrats were heavily favored. A better candidate and more effort here could have kept this seat blue. One thing that could have really helped would have been more visits from Obama himself.

North Carolina: it’s hard to say that a state that only was narrowly lost wasn’t winnable, even though Democrats went all out here.

Alaska: It doesn’t seem like Begich had much help from the national party here, and he still only lost by around 5%.

Second tier (probably not competitive but could have at least been more interesting): Montana Democrats really screwed up choosing plaigiarist John Walsh, kicking him off the ballot, and then replacing him with a radical socialist candidate, Amanda Curtis. An A-list nominee could have made this more interesting. Also, couldn’t South Dakota Dems have come up with a better candidate?

I disagree with OP about Louisiana; it was simply not winnable.

[Mr.Phips]

NC, AK, and CO were the only ones.

[PAK Man]

I still think, had Walsh not had that plagiarism scandal, Montana could have at least been close. I seem to recall that he was starting to close the gap with Daines when the scandal broke.

[here2view]

Alaska — Begich lost by 2.13%
Colorado — Udall lost by 1.94%
North Carolina — Hagan lost by 1.56%

Colorado was the most winnable, considering how Udall ran a terrible campaign. Alaska and North Carolina less so, considering how both Begich and Hagan ran better campaigns. They were just running in redder states.

I don't really think any other races were winnable.

[Orser67]

Agree with others that AK+CO+NC were clearly winnable. I think you can argue either way with IA depending on how you interpret the state's electoral movement in the last few years (i.e. how elastic it was in 2014), as well as the candidate quality of both Ernst and Braley.

WV+SD were probably unwinnable as open seats, but Rockefeller and Tim Johnson (+Harkin in IA) probably would have at least had a chance if they had run. I'm skeptical that Democrats could have won in MT without Baucus, but a win there at least seems significantly more plausible than in WV+SD.

[NewYorkExpress]

Alaska, Colorado, North Carolina.

In addition, had the cycle been a D wave, Kentucky probably would have been winnable too, given how horrifically unpopular Mitch McConnell was.

[Calthrina950]

Alaska, Colorado, North Carolina.

In addition, had the cycle been a D wave, Kentucky probably would have been winnable too, given how horrifically unpopular Mitch McConnell was.

I doubt it. McConnell still won by 5 points in 2008, which was a Democratic wave year, so I don't think he would have lost in 2014, even if it had been a Romney midterm.

[NewYorkExpress]

Alaska, Colorado, North Carolina.

In addition, had the cycle been a D wave, Kentucky probably would have been winnable too, given how horrifically unpopular Mitch McConnell was.

I doubt it. McConnell still won by 5 points in 2008, which was a Democratic wave year, so I don't think he would have lost in 2014, even if it had been a Romney midterm.

Mitch McConnell's approval ratings were higher in 2008 than they were in 2014, if my memory is correct.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I agree with everyone else; only Alaska, Colorado, and North Carolina. Colorado was the most frustrating one though, at least it has finally been rectified now.