Rothenberg Senate Rankings

[Verily]

No way Gillibrand should be considered safe, even in New York.   She's not well known enough yet and may face a brutal primary challenge from someone downstate.  Couple that with the possibility of a prominent Republican other than Peter King getting into the race if things get ugly enough, and I think that seat belongs in the Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party pile instead.

Chuck Schumer (unfortunately) is safe.

Primary challenge comes from the wrong direction to make the seat potentially competitive. Unless, of course, you think Carolyn McCarthy/Maloney would stand a chance in the primary (answer: no).

[Brittain33]

Most incumbents haven't lost a race, but the last appointed temporary Senator from New York, Republican Charles Goodell, lost a three-way race to Conservative James Buckley in 1970.  That's right - New York elected a Conservative Senator within the past 40 years. 

Do you really think that has any relevance to a Senate election in New York in 2010? Are you familiar with the importance of the Nassau Republican machine to statewide wins, and what kind of shape it's in now? How about relative population growth upstate?

No Democratic senator has lost a race for reelection in New York in eons. The last Republican to be elected to the Senate for the first time was in 1980, and that was in a 3-way race with a liberal Republican who siphoned off Democratic support in a Republican landslide year. Most damningly, you can't beat somebody with nobody. There is no Republican in the state with the stature and appeal to win a statewide federal race.

You can cherry-pick data to give hope where there is none, but the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of people who see Gillibrand or another Democrat winning reelection easily just as Republicans, appointed or not, cruise to election in Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah Senate seats.

[Nym90]

Most incumbents haven't lost a race, but the last appointed temporary Senator from New York, Republican Charles Goodell, lost a three-way race to Conservative James Buckley in 1970.  That's right - New York elected a Conservative Senator within the past 40 years. 

Do you really think that has any relevance to a Senate election in New York in 2010? Are you familiar with the importance of the Nassau Republican machine to statewide wins, and what kind of shape it's in now? How about relative population growth upstate?

No Democratic senator has lost a race for reelection in New York in eons. The last Republican to be elected to the Senate for the first time was in 1980, and that was in a 3-way race with a liberal Republican who siphoned off Democratic support in a Republican landslide year. Most damningly, you can't beat somebody with nobody. There is no Republican in the state with the stature and appeal to win a statewide federal race.

You can cherry-pick data to give hope where there is none, but the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of people who see Gillibrand or another Democrat winning reelection easily just as Republicans, appointed or not, cruise to election in Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah Senate seats.

Yeah, I can't see Gillibrand losing to anyone even if 2010 does end up being a strong GOP year. She'll do well enough upstate to make up for any losses in the suburbs; the only prayer of beating her would be if she makes major mistakes and there ends up being very low turnout in NYC plus a big suburban shift against her. Not gonna happen.

The only way I see the GOP winning this seat would be if Maloney beats Gillibrand in the primary, and the GOP gets a very strong moderate candidate, and 2010 is a strong GOP year with Obama having low approval ratings. Even with all of that, it'd be lean Dem (you'd probably additionally need bad turnout in NYC as well), but it would at least make an upset within the realm of possibility.

[cinyc]

Most incumbents haven't lost a race, but the last appointed temporary Senator from New York, Republican Charles Goodell, lost a three-way race to Conservative James Buckley in 1970.  That's right - New York elected a Conservative Senator within the past 40 years. 

Do you really think that has any relevance to a Senate election in New York in 2010? Are you familiar with the importance of the Nassau Republican machine to statewide wins, and what kind of shape it's in now? How about relative population growth upstate?

No Democratic senator has lost a race for reelection in New York in eons. The last Republican to be elected to the Senate for the first time was in 1980, and that was in a 3-way race with a liberal Republican who siphoned off Democratic support in a Republican landslide year. Most damningly, you can't beat somebody with nobody. There is no Republican in the state with the stature and appeal to win a statewide federal race.

You can cherry-pick data to give hope where there is none, but the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of people who see Gillibrand or another Democrat winning reelection easily just as Republicans, appointed or not, cruise to election in Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah Senate seats.

I am well aware of the demise of the Nassau County Republican machine.  I also understand the demographic shifts in the state.  But I don't see Gillibrand or another Democrat who wins the seat after what would likely be a brutal primary, pitting NYC against the suburbs and Upstate, as winning reelection easily.  Heck, New York CITY has elected a Republican mayor in the last four mayoral elections.  A Republican winning statewide can't be out of the question.

There are two Republicans with the stature and appeal to win a statewide federal race, if they want to and the stars are aligned after the Democrats beat up each other in a bloody primary - George Pataki and Rudolph Giuliani.  Heck, even Peter King has a shot against the likes of Maloney or even Gillibrand if she is painted in the primary as a gun nut who is too conservative for New York.

[Nym90]

Here are our latest Senate ratings, reflecting Judd Gregg's (R) recent decision to take himself out of consideration for Obama's cabinet as well as his decision not to seek reelection. The race remains a Toss-Up.

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (5 R, 0 D)

    * Bunning (R-KY)
    * FL Open (Martinez, R)
    * MO Open (Bond, R)
    * NH Open (Gregg, R)
    * OH Open (Voinovich, R)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)

    * Burr (R-NC)
    * Specter (R-PA)
    * Vitter (R-LA)
    * Bennet (D-CO)
    * Reid (D-NV)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 2 D)

    * Grassley (R-IA)
    * KS Open (Brownback, R)
    * Dorgan (D-ND)
    * Feingold (D-WI)

Currently Safe (9 R, 13 D)

    * Bennett (R-UT)
    * Coburn (R-OK)
    * Crapo (R-ID)
    * DeMint (R-SC)
    * Isakson (R-GA)
    * McCain (R-AZ)
    * Murkowski (R-AK)
    * Shelby (R-AL)
    * Thune (R-SD)
    * Bayh (D-IN)
    * Boxer (D-CA)
    * Burris (D-IL)
    * Dodd (D-CT)
    * Gillibrand (D-NY)
    * Inouye (D-HI)
    * Kaufman (D-DE)
    * Leahy (D-VT)
    * Lincoln (D-AR)
    * Mikulski (D-MD)
    * Murray (D-WA)
    * Schumer (D-NY)
    * Wyden (D-OR)

[Lunar]

Is Florida really a tossup?  That seems like a stretch

[Landslide Lyndon]

Unless Crist jumps into the race, then it is the definition of a toss-up.

[Lunar]

Unless Crist jumps into the race, then it is the definition of a toss-up.

No it's not.  The Florida GOP machine is considerably impressive and Florida's top two GOP frontrunners (Rubio, Mack) would be favored over the two people already declared for the Dems (Meeks, Gelber).  Meeks comes from one of the most liberal districts in the entire country, but could emerge victor if Hildebrand does something amazing with him, but he's non-amazing until proven otherwise.

I mean, Mack's last name is quite powerful and Rubio could make inroads in a waffling, electorally significant group that's trending Democrat (Hispanics).

[Landslide Lyndon]

Unless Crist jumps into the race, then it is the definition of a toss-up.

No it's not.  The Florida GOP machine is considerably impressive and Florida's top two GOP frontrunners (Rubio, Mack) would be favored over the two people already declared for the Dems (Meeks, Gelber).  Meeks comes from one of the most liberal districts in the entire country, but could emerge victor if Hildebrand does something amazing with him, but he's non-amazing until proven otherwise.

I mean, Mack's last name is quite powerful and Rubio could make inroads in a waffling, electorally significant group that's trending Democrat (Hispanics).

All of these could happen. But until they happen the race remains a toss-up.
Just remember that a year ago Florida was considered safe for McCain.

[Lunar]

It was considered relatively safe for McCain because the automatic presumption wasn't that Obama was going to win by 7% nationwide.

McCain still did relatively well there, especially considering he was outspent by how much?  3-1, 4-1?  If McCain didn't do horribly overall he would have won the state, and if McCain was the son of someone who was Senator of Florida until 2001...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Mack_III

[Landslide Lyndon]

It was considered relatively safe for McCain because the automatic presumption wasn't that Obama was going to win by 7% nationwide.

McCain still did relatively well there, especially considering he was outspent by how much?  3-1, 4-1?  If McCain didn't do horribly overall he would have won the state, and if McCain was the son of someone who was Senator of Florida until 2001...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Mack_III

Don't forget that Obama was hampered by the whole Democratic primary fiasco.
And we saw how well Tom Kean Jr. fared at New Jersey. After all, this is the same Connie Mack who took heat from his constituents because of his No vote for the stimulus.

[Lunar]

That article claiming Connie is taking heat from his district, it wasn't serious article (and the writers of it should be slaughtered for food) and Florida is the political opposite of New Jersey.

Obama was hampered by the whole Democratic primary fiasco how?  Like he was in Michigan?  Are you insane or just crazy?

[cinyc]

How is Feingold not considered safe?   He won his 2004 race by 11 points (though it has been closer in the past).  Who is expected to run against him?  Anyone well-known statewide?

[Landslide Lyndon]

That article claiming Connie is taking heat from his district, it wasn't serious article (and the writers of it should be slaughtered for food) and Florida is the political opposite of New Jersey.

Obama was hampered by the whole Democratic primary fiasco how?  Like he was in Michigan?  Are you insane or just crazy?

In what sense the article wasn't serious?

And before calling someone names perhaps you should watch your own arguments.
Florida the exact opposite of New Jersey? And silly me thought Mississippi or Kansas in that context.

And why do you seem so surprised by the fact that Obama was hampered by the Florida debacle?
He couldn't campaign in the state, he couldn't hire staff, he couldn't advertise, like he did in the rest of the states with obvious beneficial results (Indiana and North Carolina anyone?).
And not only that, but he was painted by the Clinton camp as some kind of villain who wanted to disenfranchise the voters of Florida.


  

[The Ex-Factor]

How is Feingold not considered safe?   He won his 2004 race by 11 points (though it has been closer in the past).  Who is expected to run against him?  Anyone well-known statewide?

Republicans always feel they have a shot at knocking him off due to his rep as an extremely partisan liberal. That's about it, really.

[Lunar]

That article claiming Connie is taking heat from his district, it wasn't serious article (and the writers of it should be slaughtered for food) and Florida is the political opposite of New Jersey.

Obama was hampered by the whole Democratic primary fiasco how?  Like he was in Michigan?  Are you insane or just crazy?

In what sense the article wasn't serious?

And before calling someone names perhaps you should watch your own arguments.
Florida the exact opposite of New Jersey? And silly me thought Mississippi or Kansas in that context.

And why do you seem so surprised by the fact that Obama was hampered by the Florida debacle?

He couldn't campaign in the state, he couldn't hire staff, he couldn't advertise, like he did in the rest of the states with obvious beneficial results (Indiana and North Carolina anyone?).
And not only that, but he was painted by the Clinton camp as some kind of villain who wanted to disenfranchise the voters of Florida.

Obama went over the top to work in Florida, he put some of his best campaign staff there, he was airing Spanish language ads enough that those two Republican Cuban Representative brothers were freaking out publicly, etc.  McCain, not Obama, was the late-comer to the Florida game.

Sorry for calling you insane, but that article was just cherrypicking a bunch of Democrats complaining about his vote.  Mack comes from a conservative district, he's not going to be in hot water over that vote.

[Brittain33]

Sorry for calling you insane, but that article was just cherrypicking a bunch of Democrats complaining about his vote.  Mack comes from a conservative district, he's not going to be in hot water over that vote.

While it is a conservative district, and he's at no risk for losing election, I would not be surprised if he wasn't genuinely getting heat from the Chamber of Commerce types about how desperately they need help. Cape Coral, Lehigh Acres--these are areas as well-publicized as Queen Creek, AZ, Tracy, CA, or Victorville, CA for having squashed Ponzi economies based solely on construction. Only unlike those other areas, FL-14 isn't even an exurb of anything. Unemployment in Lee County, FL is astronomical.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/us/08lehigh.html

FL-13 and FL-16 are likely doing better, financially.

[Lunar]

I'm sure all local county officials wanted that bill passed, but that's not really that specific to Mack.

I mean, if the stimpack works then Mack could obviously take heat for opposing it -- BUT, all such Republican Congressmen could simply claim that had supported an alternative stim bill that wasn't filled with pork and had more tax cuts.

[Nym90]

2010 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings, reflecting President Obama's decision to pick Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) to become the next secretary of Health and Human Services. The open Kansas Senate seat moves from Clear Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Currently Safe.

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (5 R, 0 D)

    * Bunning (R-KY)
    * FL Open (Martinez, R)
    * MO Open (Bond, R)
    * NH Open (Gregg, R)
    * OH Open (Voinovich, R)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)

    * Burr (R-NC)
    * Specter (R-PA)
    * Vitter (R-LA)
    * Bennet (D-CO)
    * Reid (D-NV)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (1 R, 2 D)

    * Grassley (R-IA)
    * Dorgan (D-ND)
    * Feingold (D-WI)

Currently Safe (10 R, 13 D)

    * Bennett (R-UT)
    * Coburn (R-OK)
    * Crapo (R-ID)
    * DeMint (R-SC)
    * Isakson (R-GA)
    * McCain (R-AZ)
    * Murkowski (R-AK)
    * Shelby (R-AL)
    * Thune (R-SD)
    * KS Open (Brownback, R)
    * Bayh (D-IN)
    * Boxer (D-CA)
    * Burris (D-IL)
    * Dodd (D-CT)
    * Gillibrand (D-NY)
    * Inouye (D-HI)
    * Kaufman (D-DE)
    * Leahy (D-VT)
    * Lincoln (D-AR)
    * Mikulski (D-MD)
    * Murray (D-WA)
    * Schumer (D-NY)
    * Wyden (D-OR)

[Lunar]

NH isn't lean-takeover?  I figured that was the consensus wisdom. 

[justfollowingtheelections]

2010 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings, reflecting President Obama's decision to pick Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) to become the next secretary of Health and Human Services. The open Kansas Senate seat moves from Clear Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Currently Safe.

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (5 R, 0 D)

    * Bunning (R-KY)
    * FL Open (Martinez, R)
    * MO Open (Bond, R)
    * NH Open (Gregg, R)
    * OH Open (Voinovich, R)

I would say that KY is a "Narrow Adv. for Incumbent party" and NH lean takeover.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pennsylvania is a toss-up, Reid has a clear advantage and Colorado is safe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the chances of Grassley retiring are quite high and that would make it a toss-up.

[Lunar]

I think Rothenberg doesn’t assume that candidates have a significant chance of retiring.  Besides, the GOP has been actively promoting candidates to make their retirement announcements early to help their replacements have time to raise funds, name recog, and organization.  Thus Grassley must seriously be considering staying on at this point depending on the national mood, or be planning absolutely to run at this point.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Well he will be 77 in 2010 and he was seriously considering retiring.  But then again he's on Twitter, so who knows?

btw is he dyslexic or something?  I was reading his twitter page and he doesn't make any sense at all:
http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley

[Lunar]

Well he will be 77 in 2010 and he was seriously considering retiring.  But then again he's on Twitter, so who knows?

btw is he dyslexic or something?  I was reading his twitter page and he doesn't make any sense at all:
http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley

Is he worse than  Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) who tweeted this: “Daescle(sp?)/Geitner/Rangel all avoided/cheated on taxes!Daescle latest!They don’t mind raising taxes because they don’t pay them.”

*actual quote

[© tweed]

"In IOWA NWA DCA DSM thru Detroit. Not often route. Went well. Bfast w Ia Secy Ag Northey at airport Perkins. Discuss what we do help ethanl"


omg so tech savvy!!  GOP will monopolize the youth vote by 2012