Looking ahead to the 2010 Senate races, when Democrats hope to expand their 60-seat supermajority and Republicans want to chip away at it, there are a whole bunch of competitive races on each side -- and with no immediately obvious sure bets for which seats might flip, a whole lot could happen.
In theory, the Democrats could expand their ranks even further, after two consecutive wave elections, for the reason that only one-third of the Senate is up at a given time. Thus, the Senators who are up in 2010 were shielded from the 2006 and 2008 Democratic waves, in which the Dems won nearly all the Senate races they could possibly take. To sweeten the deal for Democrats, more Republican-held seats are up in total than Democratic ones -- because 2004, when this Senate class was last up for election, was a Republican year.
A lot will depend on the national environment. In marginal cases, whether it's a Democratic or Republican year, and the extent of this, can make the difference for the candidates involved, and likely made the difference in some of those close races in 2004, 2006 and 2008.
Let's take a look at some of the top races.
Democratic-Held Seats
Arkansas: Two-term Sen. Blanche Lincoln could be in trouble, in a state that has been trending more and more Republican in federal races. Recent polls have her in dead heats with several lesser-known Republicans: State Sen. Gilbert Baker, state Sen. Kim Hendren, businessman Curtis Coleman, and businessman Tom Cox.
Connecticut: Five-term Sen. Chris Dodd came under fire in 2008 and 2009 for his handling of the financial crisis, and suspicion surrounding a mortgage he took out. Polls have shown him trailing various GOP opponents, though there has been some recent improvement as he works to restore his standing in an anti-incumbent environment. There is a wide GOP field to oppose him: Former Rep. Rob Simmons, former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, stockbroker and financial pundit Peter Schiff, former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley, and state Sen. Sam Caligiuri.
Delaware: Sen. Ted Kaufman, who was appointed to Vice President Biden's former Senate seat, is not seeking a full term. Republicans scored a top-level recruit with Rep. Mike Castle, who already represents the whole state in Congress and has been a fixture of its politics for decades. Polls have shown him narrowly leading state Attorney General Beau Biden, a son of Joe Biden, who is widely expected to run. This should be a close one.
Illinois: Sen. Roland Burris, who was controversially appointed to President Obama's former Senate seat last year by the soon-to-be-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich, is not seeking a full term. Republicans have been coalescing around Rep. Mark Kirk, who has succeeded in a Democratic-leaning area of the Chicago suburbs. The Democratic primary is between state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, and Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Jackson.
Nevada: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a top target of Republicans in this swing state. A bad economy and an anti-incumbent mood have contributed to putting him behind two different GOP challengers, former state GOP chair Sue Lowden and former UNLV basketball player Danny Tarkanian. Reid is already advertising on Tv, touting his accomplishments for the state.
Pennsylvania: Five-term Sen. Arlen Specter dramatically switched parties this past April, from the Republicans to the Democrats, due to the threat of defeat in the Republican primary against the more conservative former Rep. Pat Toomey, who nearly defeated Specter back in the 2004 primary. Specter now faces a challenge in the Democratic primary instead, from the more liberal Rep. Joe Sestak. The polls have shown that either one of the two Dems would be in a close race against Toomey in the general election.
Republican-Held Seats
Florida: One-term Sen. Mel Martinez first announced in December 2008 that he wouldn't be running for another term, and this past fall he resigned early and joined a lobbying firm. Republican Sen. George LeMieux was appointed to the seat by Gov. Charlie Crist -- himself a candidate and the GOP establishment's favorite for the seat -- and is not seeking a full term. Crist, a moderate, must fight out a primary with the more conservative state House Speaker Marco Rubio, who has the backing of the Club For Growth. The likely Democratic nominee is Rep. Kendrick Meek. Most races in Florida are close, and this one probably won't be much different.
Kentucky: Two-term Sen. Jim Bunning is retiring, after having accused his party leadership of undermining his fundraising. There are primaries on both sides in this Republican-leaning state. The Republican race pits Secretary of State Trey Grayson against Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist and son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The Democratic race is between Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo and state Attorney General Jack Conway. The polls in this race have been close.
Louisiana: First-term Sen. David Vitter, a strong champion of social conservatism, found his career mired in a 2007 prostitution scandal. However, he has continued on, touting his strongly conservative positions in a Southern state. His opponent is Democratic Rep. Charlie Melancon, a Blue Dog who has voted against the health care bill and against cap and trade, but did vote for the stimulus. Polls have shown Vitter ahead of Melancon, who at this point has much lower name recognition.
Missouri: Four-term Sen. Kit Bond is retiring. The Democrats have settled on Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a daughter of the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and former Sen. Jean Carnahan, while Republicans have gathered around Rep. Roy Blunt, a former House Republican Whip. This is another state that usually has close races, and the polls so far have given Carnahan a narrow lead over Blunt.
New Hampshire: Three-term GOP Sen. Judd Gregg, who was briefly nominated by President Obama to serve as Secretary of Commerce but then backed out, is not running again. Democrats have coalesced around two-term Rep. Paul Hodes as their candidate in a state that has been trending Democratic. The Republican field is made up of former state ATtorney General Kelly Ayotte -- who has led Hodes in recent polls -- and former state board of education chairman Ovide Lamontagne, businessman Jim Bender, and businessman William Binnie.
North Carolina: First-term Sen. Richard Burr is seeking a second term in a state that has become much more Democratic since his original win in 2004, with the state in 2008 voting Democratic for president for the first time since 1976. The current Democratic candidates are SEcretary of State Elaine Marshall, and attorney Kenneth Lewis. Polls have shown that Burr has not made a big impression on voters, with both low approval and low disapproval, and his race could end up hinging on the overall national partisan climate in November 2010.
Ohio: Two-term Sen. George Voinovich is retiring. The Republican primary is between former Rep. Rob Portman, who served as Trade Representative and Budget Director in the George W. Bush administration, and auto dealer Tom Ganley. The Democratic race is between Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Ohio is a perennial swing state, and the outcome here could end up hinging on the political climate in November 2010.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

ohyeathatsright
November 10, 2009 6:58 PM
"Ohio: Two-term Sen. George Voinovich is retiring. The Republican primary is between former Rep. Rob Portman, who served as Trade Representative and Budget Director in the George W. Bush administration, and auto dealer Tom Ganley."
Hah! What are they going to debate on, economics?!?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
November 10, 2009 7:50 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Quite possibly.
"I'm a small business owner and he's an official from the failed administration that ruined the economy"
vs.
"I've got experience in government and budget issues, and he's part of the failed auto industry"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 11, 2009 4:35 AM in reply to BillMcD
Beat Portman!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
November 10, 2009 7:28 PM
Let me go out on a limb and say, all Democratic incumbents win, plus the Democrats pick up Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and New Hampshire, and hold Illinois, for a net gain of 4. Louisiana keeps Diaper Dave, and Kentucky stays strongly Republican (they just can't help it) and North Carolina returns strongly to their Republican roots. Although North Carolina could be in play, it depends on what happens with the economy there (all tobacco all the time).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 11, 2009 4:42 AM in reply to runfastandwin
Well, you're an optimist. Some say Florida can't be won with existing likely candidate BTW; need somebody else. Don't know myself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
November 10, 2009 7:43 PM
What about Russ Feingold in WI
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 10, 2009 8:03 PM in reply to glblank
Safe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
navamske
November 10, 2009 7:43 PM
Does anyone else think Roy Blunt looks like one of the mole men from "Superman and the Mole Men"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 10, 2009 8:05 PM
The Republicans won't take control of the Senate. It's literally just about impossible given the number of seats up and the probability that they will take them. Even in the absolutely best possible scenario for the Republicans, they'll shrink the Dems' majority to 51 senators, still not enough to take the chamber.
By and large, the best result possible for the Dems will net them 5 seats, putting the balance at 65-35. This is about as unlikely as the 51-49 balance above, but it is at least within the realm of possibility.
If the Dems can manage to pass health care reform, climate change legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act by the end of the session and a new financial regulation bill, I can see the Dems picking up the Missouri seat held by Kit Bond, the New Hampshire seat held by Judd Gregg or the Ohio seat held by George Voinovich. Repealing the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy for the military may help as well.
The increasingly-abyssmal public opinion of the GOP, the insurgent Club For Growth/tea party groups on the right may also hurt the GOP's chances of holding on to the Florida seat held by George LeMieux if the Florida GOP nominates Marco Rubio. If the Ron Paul crowd in Kentucky gets Rand Paul nominated, the GOP may lose that seat too.
But the dems are far from invulnerable themselves. They may lose the Delaware seat, might lose Blanche Lincoln's Arkansas seat, Mike Bennet's Colorado seat, Chris Dodd's Connecticut seat, Harry Reid's Nevada seat and Kirsten Gillibrand's New York seat.
Those seats will be more defensible if the Senators can return to their states with health care reform enacted, ENDA passed, DADT repealed, new financial regulations in place, and green jobs being created.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
November 10, 2009 9:13 PM in reply to Icon
That's a lot to ask, given that the current congress has been in power for 10 months and hasn't gotten even one of those things finished.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SporeTen
November 10, 2009 10:01 PM in reply to jdb316
A lot of parliamentary foot dragging going on (or is that Repug knuckle dragging). A majority of Obama's nominees to various posts still haven't been approved.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 11, 2009 4:37 AM in reply to jdb316
Which is Repub. strategy, of course.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tammanycall
November 10, 2009 11:20 PM in reply to Icon
While Health Care is key, ENDA and DADT aren't dealbreakers for Dem pickups in the Senate. Of all the states listed in the post, only Connecticut has a large number of socially progressive Democratic voters. And even they aren't likely to place someone else's Issue #1 ahead of their own.
Regulating Wall Street will probably go farther with voters in 2010, because it would capitalize on the widespread anti-banker, anti-bailout anger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 11, 2009 1:06 AM in reply to tammanycall
ENDA and DADT are dealbreakers for the LGBT community. If there's no action on either of them by the end of the session, most LGBT people just won't bother going to vote in 2010.
Most LGBTs are willing to accept that there's not enough votes in the Senate to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act right now, ENDA and DADT would pass without too much difficulty if the Dems would just bring the bills to a vote.
LGBTs make up anywhere from 5% to 15% of the population. Ignoring their potential as a voting demographic is bad politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 11, 2009 8:36 AM in reply to Icon
You overestimate the stregth of the LBGT vote. Maine should prove that. There is not a single Senate race that hinges on the gay vote.
Despite the bloviations of Avarosis, when people don't have jobs, healthcare and homes, DADT is way down the list of voting priorities.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 11, 2009 9:48 AM in reply to FreeRider
Absolutely correct. I realize it is the most important issue to them, but it is not for Obama considering the unbelievable problems he has to take care of first.
They need to grow up and I am very sympathetic to the cause.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 11, 2009 10:32 AM in reply to FreeRider
States where this is likely to have an impact in Senate races:
New Hampshire, Connecticut, Delware, Illinois, New York (special election)
Will it be the only factor? No. But it will play a role in whether the Dem base is energized, and passing really short and simple bills like ENDA is considerably less time consuming and legislatively difficult than health care reform or financial reform.
It stands to reason that these bills could be passed while the legislature is otherwise tackling other issues as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 11, 2009 9:46 AM in reply to Icon
That is just plain stupid if you are right about the LGBT. They will serve no purpose other than maybe losses to the dems that would hurt us in the end.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 11, 2009 10:25 AM in reply to lousgirl84
We who watch politics tend to forget that the vast majority of the population does not. Sure, the professional advocacy organizations that understand how the government works will continue to vote and support the Democrats, but the random gay or trans person walking down the street?
For them, this is a matter of their civil rights. If the Dems make promises to increase gay civil rights, and then fail to actually do so, what incentive is there for LGBTs to continue voting for them?
You may think that makes LGBTs immature, and you may well be right. But the Dems cannot afford to get low turnout in 2010 and sexual minorities are (at least in theory) part of their base. LGBT people are also statistically more politically active than many other groups, and vote more consistently. Strategically, the Dems would be extremely unwise to ignore that part of their constituency.
ENDA and the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (which would repeal DADT) are not long or complicated bills, and there are easily enough votes in both chambers of Congress for both of them to pass. While there are bigger issues that Congress needs to deal with, lack of progress on these key issues will dissuade LGBT people from voting next year.
This issue alone wouldn't cost the Dems either chamber of Congress, but it may cost them individual seats, and given the general simplicity of the bills in question, it stands to Dem reason that refusal to let the bills proceed implies lack of support for them. The LGBTs saw the same lack of support when the GOP held Congress and the White House. All they're seeing right now is a lot of promises but very little action; the question is, thous, "why vote when neither party evidently supports you?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
holyhandgrenaid
November 11, 2009 9:22 AM in reply to tammanycall
Wrong dude, NH has a strong social progressive population. On economic issues, its much more conservative than the rest of the Northeast, but is socially just as liberal, if not more (its a fairly libertarian state).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
November 10, 2009 8:59 PM
Shorter: I want Ds to run as and act like Ds, whether they win or lose, and I want to see the Club for Growth do as much for the senate as they did for NY-23.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hychka
November 10, 2009 9:02 PM
You forgot Bayh. He'll have trouble against a T-begger with no union or women voter behind him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 10, 2009 9:17 PM
In less than one year, the Dems have managed to tick off just about every taxpaying segment of the population.
And, as Obama has stated, he's just getting started.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 10, 2009 9:57 PM in reply to Silence
Gallup approval is at 54% today. Better than both Clinton and Reagan at the same point in their presidency.
Yeah, he's doing horribly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 11, 2009 10:03 AM in reply to Stroszek
The polls to which you are referring reflect Obama as likable person. The right direction/wrong direction polls are very unfavorable to him and getting worse with each passing day. The voters also liked Clinton, but chose to remove most legislative influence from him.
The American people have a long history of making needed "adjustments" to the balance of power. Think of it as a ship leaning heavily to the port side. Weight must added to the starboard side to right the vessel.
Without this adjustment, the ship will capsize.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 11, 2009 4:45 AM in reply to Silence
Well, the extremely stupid teabagging segment of no-nothing bigots, they're certainly dissatisfied, so you've got that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 11, 2009 10:11 AM in reply to Overreach THIS!
I assume you are referring to the people who pay taxes and have served to protect your freedom?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 11, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to Silence
You know what?
You are a perfect idiot. And there is a place for people like you. www.redstate.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
a SC mom
November 10, 2009 9:31 PM
Please look into Chad McGowan running against Jim DeMint in South Carolina. I met him and grilled him on the issues that are important to me.
He explained about the stories out there that are saying he's a repub -- that he donated to repubs (and dems) in the past.
He grew up in a repub home, repub family. It wasn't until he saw the repub party lose their way (re: crossing the line between church and state and spending tax money for the wrong reasons). He saw the dems had the platform that he related to most.
I can relate to that. I, too, grew up in a (Goldwater) repub home. I even joined the young repub club at college (back in the 70's). Then i grew up and experienced life. I became a liberal dem and haven't looked back (difficult to do in SC).
McGowan towers in at 6'8" - around 280 lbs - and in GREAT shape. He is a "trial lawyer," knows the law, knows how to debate. He will look like a giant next to DeMint in a debate. He is ready for a fight. Please check him out.
Chad McGowan for Senate
1539 Health Care Drive
Rock Hill, SC 29732
http://www.chadmcgowan.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 10, 2009 9:53 PM in reply to a SC mom
The country is going bankrupt and people are starting to smell the pungent odor of a meltdown.
BTW, threatening the Catholic church with removal of tax exempt status is winning idea. Who was the braintrust behind that one?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
November 11, 2009 1:59 AM in reply to Silence
You are aware that there are certain rules that have to be followed for any religious group to keep their tax exempt status, yeah? If he feels they broke said rules, he had every right to remind them of their obligations.
But you're a Republican...Rules don't matter to your side. Only the people you're trying to trash talk into oblivion. Sorry, I forgot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 11, 2009 9:43 AM in reply to Kuyleh
Are you referring to presidential speeches at Catholic Universities or donations to ACORN?
I assume you'll be presenting evidence of my allegiance to the Republican party in the near future. I'll be waiting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
November 11, 2009 11:36 AM in reply to Silence
Well, I'll be honest. I really have no idea what you're referring to with the whole presidential speeches at Catholic Universities thing, and the only thing I can really guess at doesn't apply. Maybe you should read the rules you're arguing about. The majority of the rules are based on the actions of the group given the status...Meaning that they aren't supposed to use all that money they don't pay in taxes to go force their opinions down the rest of the world's throat.
The President was likely referring to the massive campaigning they did to get the Abortion Amendment in. And yes, that may well qualify as breaking the rules.
As to ACORN, that's just another GOP talking point you apparently can't let go of. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment, or with what you said initially. And it doesn't score you any points against what I said either.
If you aren't a Republican, maybe you should take another look at yourself. You sure parrot their lines for them. I bet they'd love you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
November 11, 2009 10:47 AM in reply to Kuyleh
oh yeah!!! [noun] [verb] ACORN!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
November 11, 2009 11:37 AM in reply to pppwww
Want to come back and try again when you have something pertinent to the conversation at hand?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
November 10, 2009 11:00 PM
all i smell is the pungent odor of someone who became a "deficit hawk" sometime around mid-January of '09. it's a smell that will never be confused with the pungent odors of dignity or intellectual honesty.
[however, the smell is very similar to the pungent odor of the "civility!" trolls who all magically appeared when the dems took back the house and its subpoena power.]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freshwaterluddite
November 11, 2009 12:08 AM
Good to know our crop of candidates for Senate are starting to represent the changing racial & ethnic demographics of the country...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
L0ngT0m
November 11, 2009 6:17 AM
Eric, I suggest you expunge the phrases "a whole bunch of" and "a whole lot" from your repertoire--or at least make an attempt not to use them in the same sentence.
As for the analysis, if unemployment next August is close to where it is now, the Dems will be O-U-T. So far, their governance has been so far short of what they promised and what is needed that they really don't deserve to keep control of the legislature.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SporeTen
November 11, 2009 8:54 AM in reply to L0ngT0m
That may be but Repub.s don't govern at all so where would that get us?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 11, 2009 9:47 AM in reply to SporeTen
Liberty?
"It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 11, 2009 9:50 AM in reply to L0ngT0m
Wanna bet you're wrong?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redshift
November 11, 2009 1:33 PM
Good thing I made a New Year's Resolution to avoid arguing with idiots...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texas Aggie
November 11, 2009 8:10 PM
And Stormy Daniels in Louisiana? Any reason why she shouldn't be mentioned since her name recognition has to be better than Melancon's, whoever he is, and she is a lot more capable than Vitter ever thought of being?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
o224hsday
November 11, 2009 9:17 PM
Dodd looks like he is waking up and getting his name tied it to GOOD news[reforms involving the FED]. His poll numbers have started to rebound and there is still plenty of time till the actual election. Still, there are some DEMs looking to challenge Dodd and I'm sure he would rather not have to spend $$$ on a primary.
I did find this little tidbit in the Hartford Courant...."John Mertens is chairman of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party and is seeking the party's nomination... Connecticut for Lieberman was launched by U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman after he lost the Democratic primary('06). But Lieberman walked away as soon as he won re-election, allowing his fiercest critics to seize control of the party that bears his name."
"The goal was always "to use the party to hold Lieberman accountable, and it's vital that it remains in existence until Lieberman runs again," said activist Sue Henshaw. "To use the Connecticut for Lieberman Party for any other purpose than its mission diminishes both the politician and the party."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
o224hsday
November 11, 2009 9:20 PM
If Sen. Reid loses, is Sen. Durbin the new Senate Majority Leader?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?