T2L's Senate Rankings

Following up on our House race rankings, I wanted to write up a post of the top Senate races most likely to switch party hands. Unlike the House side where I counted 64 seats that I saw conceivably changing sides, here, there only about a dozen where that is the case.

Tier 1: Start measuring the drapes

1. Virginia (John Warner, ret.). This was not a tough call. Looking over RCP, I count only two polls (one in January and the other in May), where Jim Gilmore was within less than than twenty points. In Virginia. We've written before that Mark Warner would likely have beaten Tom Davis decisively, but given Davis' savvy and ability to fundraise, it would not have been this bad. Warner is ultra popular, but Republicans should be losing U.S. Senate races by 30 points.

Gilmore's performance in this race is an indictment not just of his political strengths (or lack thereof), but a black eye and an embarrassment for the state Republican Party that choose to do have a primary convention in order to coronate Gilmore over the more moderate Davis. It amazes me that this is the seat John Warner won with 83 percent of the vote in 2002. It just goes to show you that political success very often hinges more on popular individual personalities (like J. Warner and M. Warner), than politics or policy. In 2016, Mark Warner will be just over 60 years old with the White House probably opening up. Just saying.

2. New Mexico (Pete Domenici, ret.). Who else thinks Tom Udall is glad he jumped into this thing? For those junkies who remember, Udall initially rejected running for this seat soon after state legend Pete Domenici announced his retirement. Udall reasoned that he had good influence derived from his seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Of course, the real reason was that he saw a potential Senate campaign as brutal, and he has had a safe niche in his Sante Fe-based congressional district. He also likely had bad memories of past losses in his younger years. Like in Virginia, state Republicans did themselves no favors by nominating the conservative and charismatic-less Steve Pearce of southern New Mexico over the more moderate and politically skilled Heather Wilson of Albuqurque. But also similar to Virginia, Wilson, like Tom Davis, would have lost to Tom Udall as well, even if by a smaller margin.

Anyway, Udall is simply too well-liked in New Mexico to be beaten, especially in this type of year. He's powerful in both the north and Sante Fe and in Bernalillo County. Pearce's southern conservative base is not enough to overcome that, and he is also hampered by Obama's strength in the region as well. Again, I find it weird and astonishing how New Mexico will go from safely re-electing conservative Domenici, to overwhelmingly sending to Washington liberal Mark Udall. To voters, it is often all about the personalities.

Tier 2: Just about done

3. Colorado (Wayne Allard, ret.). Honestly, this is a seat I felt confident Democrats would win for a few years, whether or not Wayne Allard retired. As early as 2006, or perhaps even before, it was pretty obvious Rep. Mark Udall was going to run for the Senate eventually. Like in New Mexico, the Udall name has gold-credibility with many of the state's voters, even though Mark is probably a bit more liberal than the rest of his state (ditto Tom just south of here, though the problem is probably a bit less pronounced). For his part, Allard has long been one of the most conservative senators in the country, and I think his views have been wearing somewhat thin in Colorado. Even before Allard decided to hang up the spurs, I felt Udall's name and political resume would have presented a nice enough contrast to win the seat in a head-to-head match-up with Allard.

We never got to see what would happen in that contest, as Allard retired, and the GOP failed to recruit a strong challenger of the caliber of former Gov. Bill Owens, for example, to face Udall. With a weak bench, the state party ultimately went with former congressman Bob Schaeffer, probably not the best nominee. (Swing State Project has a great diary documenting Schaeffer's weaknesses and foibles.) Schaeffer has tried to rename Udall, "Boulder Liberal Mark Udall" this year, and for his part Udall has tried to tie Schaeffer to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals. It appears that in this national environment, Schaeffer's tactics have failed, while Udall's have stuck better.

Schaeffer has posted only two leads in public polls, both by one point, and both by Rasmussen in year-old polls. Granted, Udall has mostly been ahead by mid-single digits, but Schaeffer has simply never caught up. In the last three weeks, Udall has gone up by 10, 14, 11 and 7 points in the released polls, probably with a big assist from Barack Obama pulling away here. With the NRSC recently announcing it was pulling out of here, this one is basically over, but again, Udall was likely never going to lose this race.

4. New Hampshire (John Sununu). For most of this cycle, John Sununu has been called this year's Rick Santorum, a title which essentially means that Sununu would be facing long odds all year, and would ultimately lose no matter what he did. For the most part, I think this is a fair label. Santorum, regardless of what he did or how much money he raised was a goner through all of 2006, and probably before that. His record was too conservative and his personality too caustic for Pennsylvania, and it was only a matter of time before he lost (he got a free ride from foolish Democrats in 2000 who nominated a zero in Ron Klink), as soon as the Democrats got a credible challenger for him. Well, new DSCC chair Chuck Schumer and Gov. Ed Rendell realized this, and cleared the field for conservative Democratic State Treasurer Bob Casey, the son of the well known former governor. The minute he got in, Santorum was politically dead; though to be fair, several other lesser names could have beaten him, but the Democrats were taking no chances in 2006.

Sununu is different from Santorum in that he has not been as loud and abrasive in pronouncing his conservatism. He is quieter and more thoughtful. As a result, he is a better fit for his state. Plus, while Jeanne Shaheen was a top recruit for the DSCC, I would call her a light-heavyweight nominee (whereas someone like Casey was a heavyweight recruit). The former governor is okay, but not a super candidate, and this is part of the reason she has not totally sealed the deal here (also why Sununu bested her in their first match-up in 2002, with Sununu winning 51-47).

That being said, 2008 is an even worse environment that 2006, and that is what will bury Sununu, much more than his opponent will. Santorum would have lost because of Casey alone or against a lesser opponent in the 2006 environment. That he had to face both at the same is why he lost by close to 20 points, 59-41. In this race, Sununu will lose because of the national environment, combined with New Hampshire's leftward swing and Obama's strength here. Facing Shaheen alone accounts for only a 3-5 point win, in my estimation.

I have a feeling that throughout the year, the GOP and Sununu felt their one saving grace, the one factor that could save the seat for them was John McCain. Historically popular in the Granite State, they probably felt McCain would have coattails to boast Sununu at the end and erase his year-long deficit. With Obama's quick and forceful rise in New Hampshire, and McCain's collapse, this hope died probably a couple of months ago, and with it Sununu's biggest saving grace.

Speaking generally, Sununu has posted only a couple of leads in public polls, and both of them seem like outliers. Any incumbent that is down double-digits over six months before his race is in enormous trouble, and that is what we have had here. Sununu has just never been able to get his footing, and that is why he is going to lose.

Reasons for John Sununu's loss:

(1) New Hampshire's movement away from the GOP;
(2) the quality of his opponent;
(3) The national anti-GOP climate; and
(4) Obama's coattails for his opponent.

Tier 3: Likely to change hands

5. Oregon (Gordon Smith). When you are a very well known incumbent, and your poll number is just about always below 50 percent, often in the low 40s and sometimes even in the 30s, facing a weak opponent, you're screwed. Such is the case of Gordon Smith.

In any other year, against an opponent of the caliber of State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, the likeable Smith would win, probably somewhere along the lines of 52-to-46. While I am sure Merkley is a nice man, he is not a fabulous recruit, and he is the result of Chuck Schumer being unable to get former Gov. John Kitzhaber, and Reps. Peter DeFazio, David Wu, and Earl Blumenauer into the contest. Merkley was at best the fourth choice. Nevertheless, he is very likely going to find himself sitting in the World's Most Deliberative Body next year because of a toxic national environment for Republicans.

Check the polling, specifically the last six polls released. Smith is above 42 percent in only one of them. Any incumbent with those numbers this late in the election season will lose nine times out of ten.

While I have not heard this comparison, I think this race is a lot like Rhode Island in 2006. While Oregon is not nearly as Democratic as the Ocean State, like Lincoln Chafee, Gordon Smith has long been popular in Oregon despite his party affiliation. He is effective and liked by his constituents. And like Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island's current junion senator, Jeff Merkley is a good, but not a great recruit. Nevertheless, Smith, like Chafee before him, will find himself on the losing end because of that little uppercase 'R' next to his name on the ballot.

Politics is a bitch like that.

6. Alaska (Ted Stevens). I bet you are wondering right now how I can have a just-convicted Senator only at #6 on a list of Senate seats most likely to change hands next week. Well, it really is not a hard decision. This is Alaska, and I bet even after this verdict, there will be plenty of Alaskans who not only continue to venerate Stevens, but who will actually vote for him. Those and probably others will even resent this verdict, rendered in the District of Columbia, and this will impact their vote. Do not rule out many Alaskans rallying around Uncle Ted and voting to re-elect him as an act of defiance.

This has been such a weird race that I would not be shocked if Stevens won next week. Will he? Almost certainly not, but I would not shocked if it happened. This race has never been about Democrat Mark Begich, but about Stevens himself (though, if Democrats had not put up such a strong nominee, I bet Stevens would win next week). As a result, I won't sit here and guarantee a Begich landslide.

Heck, what would happen if the judge in this case, who, incidentally has been highly critical of the prosecution's conduct during the trial, tossed out some of the counts? I don't know either. This seat is almost surely turning blue right now, even with Sarah Palin's presence on the top of the ticket, but I won't put this seat up there with Virginia, New Mexico, or even the other two.

Tier 4: Leaning slightly to a Democratic takeover

7. North Carolina (Elizabeth Dole). Frankly, I am surprised we are here today, putting North Carolina down as moving towards a Democratic victory. I had maintained in my head all year that Dole would not be beaten, despite the DSCC's early best efforts. My rationale was that Dole was just too well-liked personally back home to lose, despite some questions about her effectiveness. Furthermore, when top potential challengers like Gov. Mike Easley, State Treasurer Richard Moore and Attorney General Roy Cooper all declined to run, it looked like a nominee like state Sen. Kay Hagan would be a likely loser.

Ah, how first impressions and prognostications can be so very wrong! Hagan has run an aggressive campaign, and has gotten a big assist from the even-more-aggressive DSCC, which has hammered Dole for months. The DSCC's clever ad with two old coots in rocking chairs questioning Dole's effectiveness was perhaps one of the key turning points of the campaign, and there is no question that it took Dole down a peg, highlighting not only her track record in the Senate, but her disconnect from the Tarheel State and its citizens.

Dole's response to the DSCC provides a textbook example for how not run a campaign in the existing national environment. Rather than work to reinforce her positive image in the state as a favorite daughter -- the same tact that helped propel her to Washington in the first place in 2002 -- she went after Hagan with the magic "L" word: Liberal. However, given the environment this year, such a tactic was folly, and it helped Democrats continue to define Dole.

After bursting out to a lead near the end of August, and pushing ahead in the ensuing couple of months, the most recent polls have put Dole back in the race, and the race looks about tied. So, if you had asked me two weeks, I would have Hagan for sure. Now, it is tighter. But with Obama surging here, I can't see Dole winning if Obama wins. And I think Obama will win North Carolina by a close margin.

8. Minnesota (Norm Coleman). In several ways, this is classic case of heart versus head. Many voters actually like Norm Coleman in Minnesota, probably more than Al Franken, and view him as a better United States Senator than the comedian. However, Franken is a Democrat and Coleman a Republican in an awful national year for the GOP. This is why Franken is ahead. Other things being equal, Coleman would probably beat Franken by five or so points.

This is not to say that Coleman would be safe in another year. Honestly, if he were facing a less flawed candidate like Rep. Betty McCollum, he would have been cooked months ago. Coleman is only in this race because of all of Franken's baggage. Otherwise, we may have seen a race not too different from the '06 campaign where now-Senator Amy Klobacher stomped Congressman Mark Kennedy to win the retiring Sen. Mark Dayton's seat.

As we talked about earlier, this has been a very weird race to poll, with wildly varying results of late. I think there are two reasons for this. First, the emergence of independent Dean Barkley has definitely unsettled things as pollsters did not have a good handle on his impact on the status of the contest. Second, I believe that a lot of Minnesotans have been disgusted by the incredibly negative tenor of the race, and have grown to resent both Coleman and Franken.

As it stands, this race remains tight. Franken seems to have finally jumped out a lead -- outside the margin of error in a couple of findings, no less -- and now looks like he is ahead by a tight 2-3 points. As to who Dean Barkley is taking more votes from, this is hard to say. On the one hand, you could argue a third-party candidate like this automatically hurts the incumbent, but I think this view is too simplistic, especially for a race like this. I believe that while Barkley is taking votes away from both men, he is probably hurting Franken a little more than Coleman.

The reason for this is that the very rationale behind Barkley's semi-credible candidacy is that he is a plain alternative to what is being offered between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. As a result, I think a good cross-section of voters who want to cast an anti-incumbent ballot are going to Barkley. In other words, that there is a huge amount of the population who wants to vote out Republicans like Coleman automatically boasts Franken, but Barkley's presence gives these voters another option. And because Franken's negatives are so high and his candidacy unpalatable to many voters, some of them are going to vote for Barkley. How many votes he will get in on November 4 remains to be seen, but I think that for this reason, he is probably less helpful to Franken.

Two things are propping up Franken to the point that it looks like he will put out the seat. The first thing is that his and the DSCC's relentless campaign against Coleman has successfully pulled the incumbent's favorability ratings around where Franken's have been, if not lower. Consequently, many voters who may have felt uneasy about Franken might feel less so because Coleman's personal splits have been hit so hard. In fact, if you believe the most recent R2K and Rasmussen findings, Franken has even better favorables than Coleman. An incumbent cannot beat an opponent, even a flawed one, if his favorables are at the same level or below his challenger.

Second, is of course Barack Obama. Obama appears poised to win Minnesota by a very comfortable margin. Of the seven presidential polls taken in the state in the last two weeks, Obama leads in all of them, by double digits in five of them. If Obama wins by 10-to-15 points here on November 4, he is very likely going to carry Al Franken over the white finish line with him. This something Coleman has no control over, particularly with John McCain pulling out of here.

One other item on this race. Earlier this summer, Coleman's campaign made a mistake that may end up costing him his seat. With the race tight, but Coleman still sporting a lead, his campaign leaked some very unfavorable writings that Franken had done years ago which, to be diplomatic, were not family-friendly. They were so bad that Franken was attacked by some prominent Minnesota Democrats, and there was loud chatter among party members of whether to get Franken out of the race.

Why was this a mistake? Well, while this stuff was so explosive and delicious, Coleman was foolish to get it out in June or whenever. Had he waited until October, when the race was really tight, this could have turned the race at its most pivotal moment. Instead, it hurt Franken early, but gave him more than enough time to recover. The lesson? If you have a really powerful bullet or ace up your sleeve, save it until the moment you absolutely need it, and don't fire it impulsively when it won't be as helpful.

Tier 5: Leaning to the Republicans

9. Mississippi (Roger Wicker). I have to admit that despite my political interest in this race, it has become a tough call between whether this one of the Chambliss-Martin Peace State battle is closer. Given the poll numbers, it could be either, and a good case could be made that Georgia is even tighter.

Anyhow, regular readers know all of my thoughts on this race available here, here, here, here, here, and here. To win this contest, former Governor Ronnie Musgrove needs three things:

(1) He needs around one-quarter of the white vote;
(2) He needs 91 percent of more of the black vote; and
(3) He needs black turnout to hit 37 percent or more, with 39 percent being ideal.

If all three things occur, Musgrove will take this thing. If not, it is almost certain that Roger Wicker will win his first full term in the Senate. Musgrove has a very tough needle to thread, but if recent polling is accurate, he is on his way to achieving the first and second prongs, while #3 is out of his hands. Obviously, 37 percent of the state's population is black. 2004 turnout was 34 percent. Personally, my gut sense is that turnout will be around 37-38 percent.

Given Roger Wicker's recent radio ads to try to turn off some black voters to the Democrat, Wicker obviously has concerns that Musgrove is at where he needs to be with the black population to win. Furthermore, in all polls, he has had over 20 percent of white support, which speaks to the possibility that he has a base of white support that is fairly unshakeable.

If Musgrove does win next week, and this will be one of the races I will be following most closely Tuesday night, it will be by a very tight margin, something along the lines of 50.5-to-49.5. A lot of people have written this one off, but I think Musgrove's got an excellent chance.

10. Georgia (Saxby Chambliss). Check out my most recent thoughts on this contest. Over the last month, Jim Martin has not been able to pull ahead of Chambliss in any polls, but the consistent average for the contest over that period is just about 46-44 in favor of the Senator. This is not a good place for an incumbent, particularly one who has enjoyed such a large financial advantage over his opponent.

The wild card here is that if no candidate receives 50 percent, the race will head to a December run-off. Given the race's tightness, as well the presence of a libertarian candidate on the ballot, we may be headed to that territory. A run-off would likely favor Saxby Chambliss, though, as I said Friday, I will write something on this eventuality as soon as time allows. Gun to my head, Chambliss finishes ahead of Martin her, but I don't know if he can clear the 50 percent line either.

11. Kentucky (Mitch McConnell). Check out my most recent thoughts on this contest. My general view here is that Mitch will eke out the win with about 51-52 percent because of Obama's lack of coattails in this 7 percent black state, and because his opponent, Bruce Lunsford has such low favorability scores. If Mitch were facing a more credibility candidate like Congressman Ben Chandler, he would be in a much more precarious position. Still, if Louisville sees unprecedented turnout, maybe Lunsford will get the boast he needs to overtake Mitch. Right now the race remains around the same territory as Georgia, with the incumbent stuck around 46 percent.

Tier 6: Likely to stay Democratic/Republican

12. Louisiana (Mary Landrieu). You think NRSC chair John Ensign would like back any of the money Senator David Vitter and Karl Rove brow-beat him into expending here?

13. Texas (John Cornyn). This race has been close at times, but the key issue is not so much that it is Texas this race is in, but rather that Cornyn had oodles of money and his opponent, Rick Noriega, has basically nothing. Compounding this problem is that the DSCC not only has a lot of targets to look at this year, but also that Texas is so large and has so many expensive markets, making a DSCC investment here almost impossible given the late time.

Tier 7: Prayer might work

14. New Jersey (Frank Lautenberg). Well, at least this year the NRSC was smart enough to stay out; though really that was more likely the result of the GOP having no money, as opposed to learning past lessons. Being from New Jersey, I can say that Frank Lautenberg has never been beloved in the state, and never will be. But against a nobody like former congressman Dick Zimmer, and in this national environment it won't matter. Frank, who I like personally, will head back to Washington, and take up another six years doing nothing.

15. Nebraska (Chuck Hagel, ret.). This seat was lost for Democrats when their only viable candidate, former Senator Bob Kerrey declined to run. Former Governor Mike Johanns is a shoo-in.

On that note, can someone explain something to me. In 2006, Scott Kleeb ran a very impressive insurgent campaign in Nebraska's Third District, one of the top 10 most conservative House districts in the entire country. Taking up most of Nebraska, it is more conservative than about every seat in the South except for one in Alabama and a handful in Texas. It leans further right than Wyoming or western Idaho. It is that red. Yet, Kleeb ran such a strong race for the then-open seat that President Bush had to visit the district days before the election to save the GOP nominee. In the end, Kleeb lost, but by only 55-45, a very impressive margin. Kleeb ran a great race while falling just short. During and after the campaign, he became a darling of the Netroots and many national liberals.

With all of that in mind, can someone tell me why he ran statewide against a candidate he has never had a tiny shred of a chance to defeat? What is the point? Yes, he was great in 2006, but if you lose a House race, your next political action should not be to run for Senate. I guess Kleeb's national profile went straight to his head here. He could have had a great political future, and he still might, but if he loses by double digits here next week, all of that could go out the window.

Note to ambitious young politicians: ambition is good, but don't get ahead of yourselves.