Vulnerable Seats 2012

[SPC]

I will post later.

[Kevin]

I would say both McCaskill and Webb are very vulenarable in 2012.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Way too early to predict vulnerablity in this class.

Though the one who needs to proove himself is Webb.

[adam]

Considering that Webb would have been horribly defeated had it not been for Allen's loss of his mind, I would say that he's already in the hotseat...one screw up and that could very well be the end of him.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I actually think Webb will acquire a John Warner-like reputation in Virginia - that is if he seeks re-election in 2012, he could easily be the type that does not want to remain in the Senate for good.

I think Jon Tester could be vulnerable; the closing days of the Montana Senate race saw Burns almost pull-off a remarkable upset after he had been down by up to 10% in polls.  Tester's record seems liberal and will thus be easy to attack; if Rehberg challenged him, I believe he would be vulnerable.

And although I think she is a good fit for Missouri, McCaskill seems likely to be vulnerable just because Senators in that state always seem to get competetive challenges.  It was considered a big victory for Kit Bond when he beat Nancy Farmer by 56%-43%; and the previous three Senators in that seat - Ashcroft, Carnahan and Talent, were all defeated.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Other seats that could be vulnerable:

Florida:
Until Katherine Harris took the nomination, Bill Nelson was considered one of the most vulnerable

Nebraska:
If Ben Nelson retires or not, this is still a very conservative state that might want a Republican senator if someone like Heineman or Johanns runs

Washington:
If Rossi is the governor for 4 years already, he would have a good shot at Cantwell

New Jersey:
Well, you never know and if Chris Christie gives it a run and Menendez goes to jail you could be seeing a big Republican victory

*WAIVER* This is all speculation and this way to early to tell

[Rococo4]

Way too early to predict vulnerablity in this class.

Though the one who needs to proove himself is Webb.

Agreed way too early, but I would say McCaskill is the most endangered.

[GOP = Terrorists]

New Jersey:
Well, you never know and if Chris Christie gives it a run and Menendez goes to jail you could be seeing a big Republican victory

Tenn:
Well, you never know if Corker is eaten inside out by flesh eating bacteria you could be seeing a big Democratic victory.

[opebo]

Other seats that could be vulnerable:
Washington:
New Jersey:

Unlikely, as those are such strongly Democratic states.

I voted for Tester.  I think Webb will have an easier time because Virginia is moving Democrat rapidly.  Between his considerable personal appeal, incumbency, and four more years of leftward demographic movement, he'll be safer than Tester.  Of course McGaskill will be vulnerable in Missouri, but I think she's a lot closer to the state's overall politics than Tester is to Montana.

[Gabu]

Nebraska:
If Ben Nelson retires or not, this is still a very conservative state that might want a Republican senator if someone like Heineman or Johanns runs

Didn't you predict that Nelson would lose in 2006 too?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nebraska:
If Ben Nelson retires or not, this is still a very conservative state that might want a Republican senator if someone like Heineman or Johanns runs

Didn't you predict that Nelson would lose in 2006 too?

No, I don't think so.  I definetly supported Ben Nelson and had no reason to predict his downfall.  My crazy prediction was Tarrant coming close.

[adam]

Nebraska:
If Ben Nelson retires or not, this is still a very conservative state that might want a Republican senator if someone like Heineman or Johanns runs

Didn't you predict that Nelson would lose in 2006 too?

No, I don't think so.  I definetly supported Ben Nelson and had no reason to predict his downfall.  My crazy prediction was Tarrant coming close.

Didn't you also think both Santorum and Healey would win? I would say that those are crazier predictions than Tarrant coming close.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I chose Tester for the reason that Montana is a heavily Republican state, votes Republican in most Presidential elections, and, as stated before, Conrad Burns had some real momentum late in the 2006 campaign.  It was too little too late for Burns, but that might hurt Tester.

Of course, I agree with MikeyMike and Rococo that its still way too early to tell as we're not even three months into the 110th Congress and this freshman class still has 67 1/2 months until re-election.  (That is 5 years 7 1/2 months, for those of you who want it easier).  That means they still have a good 4 years until they even have to think about a re-election bid.

[Soaring Eagle]

Kyl and Ensign.

[Gabu]

I chose Tester for the reason that Montana is a heavily Republican state

This is a popular myth, but is, nonetheless, a myth.  The governor is a Democrat.  Both senators are Democrats.  The attorney general is a Democrat.  The state auditor is a Democrat.  The Montana Senate is Democratic.  The Montana House of Representatives is one seat away from being Democratic.

The only notable statewide elected positions that are held by Republicans, in fact, are the secretary of state and the representative of the at-large district.  Everything else is Democratic.

[adam]

I chose Tester for the reason that Montana is a heavily Republican state

This is a popular myth, but is, nonetheless, a myth.  The governor is a Democrat.  Both senators are Democrats.  The attorney general is a Democrat.  The state auditor is a Democrat.  The Montana Senate is Democratic.  The Montana House of Representatives is one seat away from being Democratic.

The only notable statewide elected positions that are held by Republicans, in fact, are the secretary of state and the representative of the at-large district.  Everything else is Democratic.

I think he was speaking in term's of presidential elections.

[Gabu]

I chose Tester for the reason that Montana is a heavily Republican state

This is a popular myth, but is, nonetheless, a myth.  The governor is a Democrat.  Both senators are Democrats.  The attorney general is a Democrat.  The state auditor is a Democrat.  The Montana Senate is Democratic.  The Montana House of Representatives is one seat away from being Democratic.

The only notable statewide elected positions that are held by Republicans, in fact, are the secretary of state and the representative of the at-large district.  Everything else is Democratic.

I think he was speaking in term's of presidential elections.

But he said that Tester was vulnerable because of the reason he gave.  Tester isn't a presidential candidate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think McCaskill is clearly the most vulnerable. The state has flip flopped between dem and republican senators for the las several elections. Likewise it may flip this time around in the governor's race. You can never tell which way this state will go. But since 2000, the state has trended republican and may stay for the foreseeable future.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wonder if Klobuchar will do even better. Maybe she can even pull a Joan Growe and win all or all but one counties (she actually did win the one county Growe lost, though by less than half a percentage point)

[nclib]

I think McCaskill is clearly the most vulnerable. The state has flip flopped between dem and republican senators for the las several elections.

Perhaps, although 2 of the flips were related to Carnahan's death (2000 might not have flipped, and election 2002 wouldn't have existed otherwise).

In the poll, I voted Tester since he barely beat a scandal-ridden opponent.

[Adlai Stevenson]

McCaskill has a good astrology chart for 2012!

What does that mean?

[adam]

I chose Tester for the reason that Montana is a heavily Republican state

This is a popular myth, but is, nonetheless, a myth.  The governor is a Democrat.  Both senators are Democrats.  The attorney general is a Democrat.  The state auditor is a Democrat.  The Montana Senate is Democratic.  The Montana House of Representatives is one seat away from being Democratic.

The only notable statewide elected positions that are held by Republicans, in fact, are the secretary of state and the representative of the at-large district.  Everything else is Democratic.

I think he was speaking in term's of presidential elections.

But he said that Tester was vulnerable because of the reason he gave.  Tester isn't a presidential candidate.

Hmm, fair enough. I agree that there is a misconception regarding Montana as a heavily Republican state. Having said that, I also think that Tester could be vulnerable. I mean, in a heavily Democratic year (in an apparently balanced state), Tester only managed to beat the old, senile, crook by 3000 votes. A good GOP candidate could put Tester away.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I chose Tester for the reason that Montana is a heavily Republican state

This is a popular myth, but is, nonetheless, a myth.  The governor is a Democrat.  Both senators are Democrats.  The attorney general is a Democrat.  The state auditor is a Democrat.  The Montana Senate is Democratic.  The Montana House of Representatives is one seat away from being Democratic.

The only notable statewide elected positions that are held by Republicans, in fact, are the secretary of state and the representative of the at-large district.  Everything else is Democratic.

I think he was speaking in term's of presidential elections.

But he said that Tester was vulnerable because of the reason he gave.  Tester isn't a presidential candidate.

Hmm, fair enough. I agree that there is a misconception regarding Montana as a heavily Republican state. Having said that, I also think that Tester could be vulnerable. I mean, in a heavily Democratic year (in an apparently balanced state), Tester only managed to beat the old, senile, crook by 3000 votes. A good GOP candidate could put Tester away.

Of course, you have to remember that 3,000 votes in a state like Montana carries a lot more weight and is a bigger margin than the same in other states, even like Kansas or Oklahoma and definitely those big states.  Montana has just under 1,000,000 people in the entire state with probably only half a million registered voters, so 3,000 is an entire 0.6% of 500,000, where as in California, a state with nearly 40,000,000 people and thus probably 20 million voters, 3,000 voters is 0.015% of the voting population.  That is a significant difference.

[adam]

I chose Tester for the reason that Montana is a heavily Republican state

This is a popular myth, but is, nonetheless, a myth.  The governor is a Democrat.  Both senators are Democrats.  The attorney general is a Democrat.  The state auditor is a Democrat.  The Montana Senate is Democratic.  The Montana House of Representatives is one seat away from being Democratic.

The only notable statewide elected positions that are held by Republicans, in fact, are the secretary of state and the representative of the at-large district.  Everything else is Democratic.

I think he was speaking in term's of presidential elections.

But he said that Tester was vulnerable because of the reason he gave.  Tester isn't a presidential candidate.

Hmm, fair enough. I agree that there is a misconception regarding Montana as a heavily Republican state. Having said that, I also think that Tester could be vulnerable. I mean, in a heavily Democratic year (in an apparently balanced state), Tester only managed to beat the old, senile, crook by 3000 votes. A good GOP candidate could put Tester away.

Of course, you have to remember that 3,000 votes in a state like Montana carries a lot more weight and is a bigger margin than the same in other states, even like Kansas or Oklahoma and definitely those big states.  Montana has just under 1,000,000 people in the entire state with probably only half a million registered voters, so 3,000 is an entire 0.6% of 500,000, where as in California, a state with nearly 40,000,000 people and thus probably 20 million voters, 3,000 voters is 0.015% of the voting population.  That is a significant difference.

While I will agree with the notion that 3000 votes in Montana is far more significant than 3000 votes in say, New York, the real point I was trying to make was that a 3000 vote win for Tester is sad in relation to the political atmosphere and his opponent. I see no reason as to why Tester shouldn't have got at least 53%+ of the vote.

[TomC]

Gotta say Webb. Slimmest of margins plus poor people skills and the possibility of being seen as a single issue candidate. Hopefully that issue won't be as relevant in 2012.