T2L's 2010 Senate Rankings

Today we will post our first rankings for the 2010 Senate races. It may be almost two years out, but it is never too early to spit out amateur political prognostications.

Interestingly, as we've noted here in the past, the 2010 Senate map has looked favorable for Democrats for some time. In part, this is because including special contests, 19 of the seats that are up are currently held by Republicans, and 17 are currently held by Democrats. However, the situation has become much more dicey for Republicans because of a quick succession of retirements of GOP Senators to start the year, nearly all of them creating great opportunities for Democrats to score pick-ups. With Mel Martinez (Florida), Kit Bond (Missouri), George Voinovich (Ohio), Sam Brownback (Kansas), Judd Gregg (New Hampshire) (he is not actually retiring; he is going over to the executive branch to become Secretary of Commerce), and potentially others heading for the exits, the key inquiry is no longer whether Republicans will lose even more seats -- after losing a net six in 2006, and eight more in 2008 (including Al Franken) -- but now how many they will shed in 2010.

You won't get any dispute from me that the Republicans have caught some bad breaks this cycle with these retirements, but most of them were actually expected. Furthermore, as we talked about here last year, retirements are going to happen in a body like the Senate when one party is facing a long exile in the minority, which is exactly what Republicans are staring at today. While a senator lives the Life of Riley, for someone like Kit Bond or George Voinovich -- men who have been in politics for decades and are getting long in the tooth -- going from a committee chairmanship to a member in a caucus of 41 is a big change, especially with a new Democratic President in the Oval Office. Consequently, no one should be too surprised that we saw a quick wave of retirements early on: a trickle always becomes a deluge, and really, the retiring members did the right thing by giving their party optimal time to coalesce around a new nominee and fundraise for 2010.

With us just sitting in early February 2009, the field has many unsettled patches, either because we may be waiting to hear from a few more potential retirees on whether they will run again or because the nomination fields for specific seats are unresolved. As with most of the other rankings -- most notably in The Fix blog on the Washington Post webpage or Nate Silver's new Senate counter -- these ratings rank the seats in order of those most likely to switch sides.

(1) New Hampshire (open: Sen. Judd Gregg (R) is not running for a fourth term). With Judd Gregg's nomination to become Secretary of Commerce, this race shoots to the very top of the Senate lines. The Granite State has been moving heavily towards the Democrats over the last two cycles, and this seat represents the final key statewide office out of the Democrats' hands. With the popular Gregg off the ballot, and his replacement Bonnie Newman declaring that she will not run next year (or even endorse a nominee), Republicans will have a tough time holding this seat. Look for Democrats to unify around second-term Rep. Paul Hodes, who declared for the seat almost immediately after Gregg's nomination was officially announced. Hodes' fellow Dem Rep. Carol Shea-Porter would be wise to stay out and be content with the seat she has, a post that was lucky to win in 2006. For Republicans, the bench is fairly thin. Their best nominee may be former Sen. John Sununu, who was just ousted last November. Sununu, whose father was governor and chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush enjoys universal name recognition in the state, but it remains to be seen if New Hampshire voters would send him back to Washington after decisively rejecting him months ago. Former Gov. Steve Merrill and state GOP power-broker Tom Rath are also possibilities. The fact is that this seat would have been highly contested even if Gregg had run again. Some Dems are still smarting that Gov. John Lynch did not replace Gregg with a Democrat as part of his deal with the outgoing Senator, but with Gregg gone, the seat, at least for now, leans blue anyway for 2010. So, in the longterm Democrats should be very pleased with the hand they have been dealt in New Hampshire.

(2) Ohio (open: Sen. George Voinovich (R) is not running for a third term). Some Republicans were actually pleased when Voinovich announced he was retiring. First, these people likely saw Voinovich's sagging poll numbers over the last year, and feared that he could be picked off. Second, many Republicans welcome the opportunity to replace one of the more moderate members of the Senate GOP caucus with a more conservative Ohio Republican. The GOP got just that in former Rep. Rob Portman, a high-ranking member of the Bush administration that the state and national party establishment has rallied around as their standard-bearer in this race. Republicans like Portman because of his strong conservatism, and also because he will be a strong fundraiser, taking away one concern that always exists with candidates. At this point, Democrats have not settled on a nominee, and in fact we are not even sure yet which potential pols will enter the fray. Right now, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and Rep. Tim Ryan are the biggest names out there. There are reports that Fisher wants to run, and popular Gov. Ted Strickland has begun making moves to clear the field. If Strickland is indeed trying to do this, then I would expect Brunner and Ryan to quietly drop out of sight and give a clear field to Fisher. While I do not think Fisher is the best candidate -- he is not young like Ryan, and he has lost some previous statewide runs before becoming state Attorney General and then Strickland's LG -- I think Dems should be slightly favored regardless of who in this group becomes the nominee. First, Ohio has been trending slightly Democratic in recent cycles, which automatically favors the "D" nominee. Second, Portman's work as George W. Bush's trade rep and then his head of OMB is the worst kind of baggage to have. Portman will run for his life away from his ties to Bush, but his most recent jobs will be used heavily against him by Democrats, and with the economy the way it is, that won't be helpful to his candidacy. Third, while admittedly none of the troika of Fisher, Brunner or Ryan enjoy high statewide name recognition, neither does Portman, who was a longtime congressman from just southwestern Ohio in the Cincinnati suburbs. Fourth, having the ultra popular Strickland at the top of the 2010 ballot will only help whoever Dems nominate. I fully expect Strickland to romp to a second term, even if former Rep. John Kasich or former Sen. Mike DeWine decide to run against him.

(3) Missouri (open: Sen. Kit Bond (R) is not running for a fifth term). I can't sit here and tell that like New Hampshire and Ohio, Dems will win this seat because Missouri is trending blue: it isn't. While Obama did very well here, he just fell short in capturing the state. Dems were also beaten in two vigorous challenges to take Republican-held congressional seats. Democrats control every statewide office today except for this seat and the Lieutenant Governorship, so clearly Missouri is a state Democrats can win in. I guess my point is that Missouri is no blue state. However, the reason I am bullish about Democrats' chances here can be traced to two words: Robin Carnahan. In Carnahan, Democrats have the strongest nominee of either party, and as a result, she should be considered the favorite, albeit narrowly given the red bent of the state. Carnahan, who was overwhelmingly re-elected Secretary of State last year (62-36), is very well liked in the state and she enjoys universal name recognition from her father who was governor (and tragicially died in a 2000 plane crash), her mother who was a U.S. Senator, and her brother who is currently the congressman from the Third District. While the Democrats have cleared the field to support Carnahan, the Republican field is completely unsettled, with several political heavyweight looking at running, including former House Majority Whip Rep. Roy Blunt, former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, former Sen. Jim Talent and outgoing U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway. With all these names looking to run, I would expect a primary of some sort, and this cannot help Republicans in their quest to hold the seat.

(4) Kentucky (Sen. Jim Bunning (R) is vowing to run for a third term). Right now, Kentucky is a bit of a weird situation because we don't know if Jim Bunning will run again. By all accounts, the 77-year old Hall of Fame pitcher should hang up his glove. In 1998, then-Rep. Bunning edged out fellow Rep. Scotty Baesler by 0.5% to head to the Senate, and in 2004, he barely beat unknown state Sen. Dan Mongiardo by 51-to-49 while President Bush was carrying Kentucky by 20 points. During the latter campaign, Bunning behaved erratically: he said his opponent looked like one of Saddam Hussein's sons, he erroneously claimed his wife had been assaulted at a public event by Mongiardo supporters, and he refused to go to a debate in person, instead attending via satellite from the Republican National Committee where he may have been using notes of some kind. After 2004, many people -- including this author -- naturally assumed that Bunning would serve his six years and quietly retire. Well, it appears that Bunning has other plans. Despite having barely any money in the bank, Bunning has repeatedly said he is running again. When NRSC head John Cornyn discussed Bunning's retirement with reporters, Bunning responded that Cornyn "is either deaf, or he didn't listen very well." National Republicans want Bunning out because he has raised no money, his poll numbers have been consistently in the mid-to-low 40s -- awful territory for any incumbent -- and his behavior and age raise questions about whether he can wage a brutal campaign. However, how this race will turn out may depend more on the Democratic side than on whether Bunning retires. Right now, state Attorney General Jack Conway, State Auditor Crit Luallen, Rep. Ben Chandler, and Mongiardo, now the Lieutenant Governor are all looking at running. Mongiardo has already announced, Conway and Luallen have said they won't both run, and Chandler is still a wild card. Chandler would be the Dems' best nominee because he has universal statewide name recognition, he would be able to fundraise well, and his House district is situated in a key swing part of the state. That being said, any of the other possible nominees would be very strong. Interestingly, Kentucky really has a good Democratic bench. A key issue remains whether the primary field will be clear or contested. I think that if Chandler decides to get in, he would clear it. To make a long story short, here is how match-ups would look:

Bunning-Chandler: Chandler favored by a bit
Bunning-Luallen: Luallen slightly favored
Bunning-Conway: Toss-up
Bunning: Mongiardo: Toss-up

If Bunning decides to retire, he will be immediately replaced by Secretary of State Trey Grayson, an ambitious pol who is seen as a big rising star in the GOP. If Grayson is the GOP nominee:

Grayson-Chandler: Chandler very slightly favored
Grayson-Luallen/Conway/Mongiardo: Grayson slightly favored

(5) Florida (open: Sen. Mel Martinez (R) is not running for a second term). It may be surprising that an open seat in a swing state like Florida is not higher up on this list, at least appearing before Missouri and Kentucky. Yet, given the state of the Democratic field, the prospects for this seat flipping may not be fabulous. For Democrats, only Rep. Kendrick Meek and state Sen. Dan Gelber are in. Rep. Ron Klein is said to be seriously considering running. This field is not great as it is bereft of any political heavyweights or individuals who have already won statewide. State CFO Alex Sink, Dems' strongest contender and the party's only statewide elected official (minus Sen. Bill Nelson), surprisingly decided not to run, disappointing many in the party. Some people have speculated Sink's move was because popular GOP Gov. Charlie Crist may enter this contest. National Republicans have been lobbying Crist to run instead of going for a second term in Tallahassee, and if Crist were to run, the race would be over. Crist is extremely well-liked in Florida, and he would be an easy winner over Meek (no way a shrewd pol like Klein runs if Crist is in). If Crist does not run, the race is likely a total toss-up. Klein would be the best of the existing bunch (though, to be fair, I know very little about Gelber's abilities and he is apparently well-regarded), but I wonder if a South Florida Rep. like Klein or Meek can do well enough in the Central Florida, much less North Florida to win statewide. Without Crist, the GOP field is about equally cloudy, with names like Rep. Connie Mack, former State House Speaker Marco Rubbio, and others being mentioned. Still, even if Crist is out, I don't love this contest right now from the Democrats' perspective simply because their field seems weak to me, even though I have a lot of respect for Ron Klein. We should give the fields more time to develop before we draw stronger conclusions.

(6) North Carolina (Sen. Richard Burr (R) is running for a second term). At this time last year, I thought very little of Democrats' chances of beating either Elizabeth Dole in 2008 or Richard Burr two years later. While both of them were in their first terms and North Carolina had been showing some signs that Dems remained competitive in the state, I believed that both conservatives would hold their posts without too much trouble. What a difference a year makes. In November, a previously unknown state senator named Kay Hagan badly thrashed Dole, and today I think Democrats have a very good chance of toppling Burr as well, assuming they can recruit the right candidate. For those real big inside baseball political watchers, this is the Senate seat that has famously switched hands seven times since longtime incumbent Sam Ervin retired in 1974. Burr, who has compiled one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate so far in this young Congress, is sporting some uninspiring personal splits in fresh polling from Public Policy Polling based in his state and R2K (47/46). Perhaps more troubling, PPP found Burr trailing North Carolina Attorney Roy Cooper in a prospective 2010 general election match-up (an R2K/Daily Kos poll gave Burr a slim two-point edge over Cooper). Even before these polls came out, it was generally agreed that Cooper was the Democrats' best option. Cooper is well-known in the state from his multiple successful AG campaigns and his time in the legislature, not to mention the national attention he garnered when he spearheaded the investigation of the infamous Duke Lacrosse case. If the DSCC can coax Cooper into the fray, Burr will be in very serious trouble. And even if Cooper passes, conservative second-term Western North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler could jump in and give Burr a strong challenge. Both Cooper and Shuler are said to mulling candidacies. If either runs, we may see this seat switch to a new senator for an astonishing eighth time in 35 years. So, while North Carolina is much bluer today than it was four or ten years ago, I think Burr is in such great trouble because of the strength of two potential challengers. To my mind, as is likely apparent from this post and my past posts, I think the most important thing to examine in assessing an election is the simple relative strengths of the candidates. This race is a prime example of that belief system. Should Cooper and Shuler both pass, this race will likely drop down the line.

(7) Pennsylvania (Sen. Arlen Specter (R) will likely seek a sixth term in office). Arlen Specter is vulnerable. At nearly 78-years old, Specter is running in a Pennsylvania that has moved increasingly towards the Democratic Party in recent years as evidenced by Ed Rendell's victories in 2002 and 2006 and Bob Casey's absolute slaughter of Rick Santorum in '06. This is not the same PA that sent Arlen to the Senate in 1980, much less the same state as that of ten years ago. This, combined with Specter's age and repeated bouts with cancer makes his seat highly endangered. All of this being said, however, today I think Specter's chances are of re-election are looking better than they did a few months ago. Specter, who faced rough fights in 1980 and 1992, has won his last two general races comfortably and he is well liked by many Pennsylvanians. In 2004, Specter faced a strong primary challenge from the right from then-Rep. Pat Toomey, who called for Specter's ouster for being a RINO, or "Republican In Name Only." After a nasty contest, Specter barely survived 51-to-49, and since then Specter and others have been watching closely if he would face another primary fight. However, Toomey has already dismissed talk of a rematch, and it looks like Specter will have a clear shot to the general, a likely enormous relief to the grizzled veteran and a bummer for Democrats who had hoped he would be picked off or at least weakened before the general. However, the most important factor in assessing Specter's re-election is that the Democratic Party has so far been unable to attract the type of heavyweight candidate needed to knock off a five-term incumbent, even a less than fully robust one. Reps. Joe Sestak and Patrick Murphy have shown little interest in running, and Gov. Rendell will not challenge his friend Specter. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the Dem bench in the state is neither long nor deep. Therefore, while Specter may be vulnerable, yet again Pennsylvania Democrats are showing an inability to put up a strong nominee, bringing back memories of Ron Klink (Santorum's challenger in 2000) and Joe Hoeffel (Specter's challenger in 2006), crummy nominees who were pounded after Democrats could not come up with better options. Of course, there has been some talk that Specter might retire given his age and health problems, but my view on this is that unless he is very ill, Specter absolutely will run again. He will not retire unless he is compelled to: he loves his job way too much. If he were to retire, Democrats would be favored in holding the seat in all likelihood, but the blue team should not count on this happening.

(8) Illinois (appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D) will almost certainly run for a full term). This race might be the hardest one to analyze at this time given all the factors at play. There is no doubt in my mind that Roland Burris will run for a full term next year. But unless he gets only one credible primary challenger, I could certainly see him prevailing in a crowded primary by garnering a plurality big enough to supersede a group of pols who are less known. If another black politician were to primary challenger Burris, such as Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. or Rep. Danny Davis, then all bets are off, and Burris might be ousted. This is important because, as we have discussed, Burris would be vulnerable to a challenge from moderate GOP Rep. Mark Kirk, who is pondering a run of his own. While I stand by my belief that Democrats will hold this seat even if we see a Burris-Kirk general, such a match-up has to be giving DSCC head Sen. Bob Mendendez and IL Sen. Dick Durbin a few worrisome thoughts at night.

(9) Colorado (appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) is running for a full term). While this seat will likely stay in Democratic hands, that speaks more to Republicans' deficiences in Colorado than to Bennet's strengths. As I posted when Bennet was surprisingly appointed, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper would have been the better pick, as he would have walked away with the election in 2010, but Bennet himself should still win unless he really screws up in the next year and a half, or Republicans are able to scrounge some fabulous nominee. As things stand now, numerous Republicans have declined to run -- a shocking illustration of how fast and far the state GOP has fallen in just a few short years -- and Bennet is thus looking good. If former GOP Gov. Bill Owens runs, Bennet could be in trouble, but that does not look like it will happen.

(10) Nevada (Sen. Harry Reid (D) is running for a fifth term). For someone who has been involved in his state's politics for nearly four decades, Harry Reid has never enjoyed immense popularity from his fellow Nevadans. I guess that this should not be a shock given Reid's colorless pesona and his reputation as a fairly ruthless pol. Republicans are delighted with Reid's low favorable splits, and are licking their chops at the prospect of ousting another Democratic leader just six years after Tom Daschle was beaten in 2004. Reid is not assured of another term in office, but he should still be favored. The fact is that you can't be something with nothing, and while he is not unbeatable, Republicans have yet to get a definitive 'yes' from a strong Republican challenger to take on Reid next year. Challengers are probably put-off by three things. First, Reid, all warts aside, will be able to raise tens of millions of dollars in his capacity as Majority Leader to beat back any challenge. No Republican will be able to reasonably match him. Second, with GOP Gov. Jim Gibbons extremely vulnerable, strong potential nominees are looking hard at primary challenging the governor to take what would be an easier contest. Third, Obama's enormous 12-point victory in the Silver State had to have been a wake-up call to many Republicans in the state as it demonstrated that the political landscape in Nevada may have been changing very fast in Democrats' favor. In sum, should a strong challenger emerge here, Reid will be in for a tough go of it, but as things stand tonight, that is not the case.

(11) Kansas (Sen. Sam Brownback (R) is retiring after two turns to run for governor). This one is very easy. If outgoing Democratic Gov. Kate Sebelius runs for Senate, she will be a slight favorite over whoever the GOP nominates, probably Rep. Todd Tiahrt or Rep. Jerry Moran. A poll out today from R2K shows the popular Sebelius up over 10 points over both men, which is exactly where she needs to be. Given her term and a half running the state, had she been up by anything less, it would have been a sign that she was not the great hope many Dems felt she was to be the Kansas Democratic Senator in over 75 years. As it stands, she is strong, but Kansas is so red that she would only be a slight favorite to win if she ran. If she decides not to run or she takes a job in Obama's cabinet, this seat is a lock to remain Republican.

(12) Iowa (Sen. Charles Grassley (R) is probably running for a sixth term). This is another easy one. If popular Sen. Chuck Grassley does run again, he wins in a walk. However, if he retires, this seat immediately shoots up into the top three on the line, with a Dem like Rep. Bruce Braley slightly favored to win.

(13) Louisiana (Sen. David Vitter (R) is running for a second term). As crazy as it may sound, I don't give Democrats much chance of being that tainted Vitter. Vitter is still relatively popular in the state, and Louisiana has been trending more to the right since Vitter won in 2004. Like with Reid, you can't beat something with nothing, and right now Democrats have nothing to throw at Vitter in the way of a top candidate.

(14) North Dakota (Sen. Byron Dorban is running for a fourth term). If popular GOP Gov. John Hoeven were to run, the race immediately becomes a total toss-up. The reason I have this race so low is because Hoeven declined to run against Sen. Kent Conrad in 2006, and he has given zero indication that he would run for Senate next year.

(15) Oklahoma (Sen. Tom Coburn (R) is running for a second term). Like in Kansas, Democrats have only one shot of beating Coburn short of a retirement or the infamous dead-girl, live-boy territory. If popular outgoing Gov. Brad Henry were to run against Coburn, the race would be a toss-up/lean slightly to Coburn. No one else has any shot of winning. For his part, Henry has shown little interest in running despite being term-limited in 2010. This is disheartening to Dems who would love to be rid of the firebrand conservative Coburn.

(16) New York (appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is running for a full term). Democrats will not lose this seat, whether or not Gillibrand is somehow ousted in the primary (which won't happen unless one ambitious rep were to grow a pair).

(17) The Rest. The rest of the races are not changing hands unless something completely unforeseen happens, either a retirement or fantastic scandal.