I said Democratic senator because I think it's an easy argument for Dean Heller to be considered the most vulnerable senator overall. Recent polling shows a relatively tight race with Rep. Jacky Rosen, but Heller is barely over 40% in most polls, hardly a vote of confidence but not the death knell that some were expecting (he's not Blanche Lincoln or Rick Santorum yet). However, it's hard to argue that with the national political environment, this being the only Hillary-State that has a Republican incumbent up for reelection for the Senate, and his opponent's ability to stay "Generic Democrat" (she's so far avoided a whiff of scandal that was already starting to stink up Shelley Berkley's campaign against him six years ago), Heller has to be considered in the roughest reelection race in the upper body. He could win, but I wouldn't give him even 50/50 odds at this point.
But the Democrats-that's a different story. Every single one of the most competitive races featuring an incumbent (and that's all of them-the DSCC did a perfect job of getting every incumbent to run for reelection this year), has at least a solid amount of upside, and as a result it's hard to pinpoint who the exact "most vulnerable incumbent" is. I decided to take a look at the seven most likely current D senators to lose this November, and discuss the pro's and con's of giving them that title:
(Note: These are not the only Democratic incumbents that are vulnerable this cycle. One could make the argument that Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, & Tina Smith are all at least somewhat vulnerable in a general or primary election, but I don't think anyone could say in their right mind that these are "the most vulnerable senators" or even that they aren't the outright favorites to win their elections, so they don't go on the list)
(Second Note: This is listed alphabetically. I thought about ranking them initially, but as I'm honestly undecided over who is most vulnerable at this point, I figured I'd let you hash it out in the comments and make your case)
 |
| Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) |
Why He's the Most Vulnerable: Joe Donnelly is pretty much a textbook definition of an "accidental senator." In 2012, he was coming off a tight reelection over Jackie Walorski, and had been redistricted into a considerably tougher contest for 2012. Instead of making at-the-time a seemingly unsuccessful rematch (looking at the actual results that year, I suspect he would have beaten Walorski again and then fallen in 2014 during the GOP wave considering how well Brendan Mullen did as a non-incumbent), he made a seemingly quixotic bid against Sen. Richard Lugar, a titan in the Senate for many years. Lugar, however, fell victim to a Tea Party challenge, and then his opponent Richard Mourdock pulled a "Todd Akin," landing Donnelly as the luckiest man in politics in 2012. Six years later, Donnelly doesn't have the advantage yet of another Mourdock, and has to win a state that Donald Trump eviscerated Hillary Clinton by 20-points. Donnelly had to have a near-perfect set-of-circumstances to win last time...it's doubtful that gets repeated in 2012.
Why He's Not: The Republicans are not doing themselves any favors in the primaries. Reps. Luke Messer & Todd Rokita have apparently hated each other since college, and State Rep. Mike Braun is engaging both of them in a "I Love Trump" pissing contest that has gotten nasty, with allegations of drunk driving and hiring white nationalists abounding. While bloody primaries are not as toxic as political commentators make them out to be, it certainly doesn't help any of these men that they're training their supporters to loathe the other's guts, particularly considering the turnout problems the GOP has had since 2016. Polling has shown Donnelly doing remarkably well against these men despite the state's red hue, perhaps an indication that he has gone from surprise victor to well-regarded entity in the state, regardless of party? As someone like, say, Conrad Burns has proven in the past, being an accidental senator doesn't preclude a long career.
 |
| Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) |
Why She's the Most Vulnerable: Let's be clear here-Dianne Feinstein is not losing to a Republican this year. The currently highest-polling Republican (I had to look up who it was) is Patrick Little, a white nationalist who is not going to play at all in the bluest state in the Union. No, Feinstein's vulnerability is entirely dependent on whether the emerging "Resistance" movement can actually take down a more moderate Democratic incumbent, and if indeed Feinstein is the one they can best. Her opponent is State Sen. Kevin de Leon, who has done a solid job of raising money, though nowhere near the mountain of cash that Feinstein has amassed. If both of them advance to the general (California has a top-two primary system), it could set up a very expensive race with Feinstein being the by-proxy "more moderate" candidate in the race, though it's possible that Republicans after decades of disliking her, would vote for the more liberal candidate out-of-spite (or just not vote). I'd argue that if it was between the two of them in the general, there's a sleeper race that could emerge there.
Why She's Not: There's still scant evidence that de Leon can actually make it past the fast-approaching primary election. Republicans aren't going to support his candidacy at this point, and as a result he's going to have to turn out hard-core liberals who hate Feinstein, which may be harder to find in California than you'd think based on a DailyKos message board. That's because she's been a statewide official for decades, and has strong support in important communities within the state, namely with women and Latinos. Polls have shown de Leon vulnerable to Little, and if he doesn't advance, Feinstein easily wins what will probably be her last reelection campaign (she'll be 91 at the end of her next term).
 |
| Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) |
Why She's the Most Vulnerable: Heitkamp drew an unlucky card when Rep. Kevin Cramer, the "Hamlet on the Sheyenne" of this cycle, finally decided to make a go of running for the Senate. Cramer comes with a solid fundraising apparatus and statewide name recognition, something Heitkamp's former opponent Tom Campbell simply didn't. Trump's still very popular in North Dakota, where he boasts his second-highest approval rating in the nation, and while Heitkamp has a lot of personal goodwill, so did Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu, and see where they ended up. Six years ago it took an Election Night miracle for Heitkamp to win this seat-does she really have a second one in her pocket?
Why She's Not: Polling has been scant (it's not often that we need to poll ruby-red North Dakota), but Heitkamp has led in the polling that I've seen by single-digits, and Cramer is hardly a perfect candidate. He's made upsetting comments about women and Native Americans, two communities that Heitkamp's going to already have a leg-up with in North Dakota, and those are easily exploitable by arguably the squeakiest-clean politician currently in the Senate (she's weirdly scandal-free, and as a result can get away with adorable political ads like this one). Heitkamp is also a ridiculously skilled politician, and arguably the best retail politicker in the Senate...Cramer's only real advantage here is party ID, and North Dakota has a history of not caring as much about that as other red states. Pundits seem to agree that she's vulnerable, but still the favorite and some are reluctant to call this even a proper tossup.
 |
| Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) |
Why He's the Most Vulnerable: West Virginia is Trump Territory. Trump approached 70% of the vote in 2016 in West Virginia, and despite his nose-dive in other states in terms of popularity, he still enjoys a robust approval rating in the Mountain State. In fact, it's his highest-approval rating of all 50 states. As a result, it's impossible for Joe Manchin, even as moderate as he is, to avoid Trump in this state because being a Democrat's always going to be a liability in a state this ruby red. Manchin's one of the last of a breed of Democrats in the state that once dominated the political conversation (when Manchin was first-elected to the Senate in 2010, literally every statewide office was held by a Democrat, now it's just he and State Treasurer John Perdue), and he'll surely face a well-funded and Trump-backed opponent in the general election. As Mark Pryor & Mary Landrieu proved in 2014, you can't stay teflon forever...
Why He's Not: ...but Manchin seems like he might stay teflon long enough to make it another six years. That's because unlike Pryor and Landrieu, his approval ratings are still solid & he picked the right cycle to run as a Democrat. Manchin's polling numbers are good, and as Collin Peterson has proven, you can, in fact, still win consistently as a conservative Democrat in a ruby red state. The Republican Primary has been a mess, and while there's mixed messages on how strong he is for the coming primary, there's always the possibility that Don Blankenship comes in and completely Roy Moore's this situation. As a rule, winning a general election as a convicted felon is not the easiest task (maybe in Staten Island, but not the rest of the country...and that might sound like a geographically insensitive joke, but prove me wrong on Michael Grimm & I'll apologize), and Manchin could probably take this race off the map if Blankenship is his opponent. Either way, though, Manchin has the upper-hand thanks to a strong personal brand even if the state is the rare one that loves Trump and a Democrat.
 |
| Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) |
Why She's the Most Vulnerable: In part, because everyone says she is. If this contest were decided by popular vote, and not just me examining objective facts, Claire McCaskill would be chosen as the most vulnerable Democrat up for reelection. This is because McCaskill, while not an accidental senator like Donnelly (she won against Jim Talent fair-and-square in 2006), was probably an accidental reelected senator. McCaskill was running behind in most polls when she got a gift from the heavens by-way of Todd Akin (something she helped make happen, using her years of working alongside Akin & knowing his ability to put-his-foot-in-his-mouth to her advantage), who caused her to win a robust reelection campaign. This year, it's probable she won't have Todd Akin, and while she's arguably the most prodigious fundraiser in the Senate, money doesn't always buy elections. She's a polarizing figure (she doesn't have the warm moderate glow of a Heitkamp or Manchin), and Republicans got a top-tier opponent for her in Josh Hawley.
Why She's Not: McCaskill, if you look at actual polling, is vulnerable, but generally leading. Most non-partisan polling shows McCaskill up by 1-2 points this year, and while that's hardly convincing, it's also not a huge endorsement of Hawley. Hawley has a mess of issues going on in his campaign right now, ranging from his mediocre fundraising numbers (if he's actually running against the most vulnerable Democrat in the country, why does no one want to give him cash?) and perhaps more damning is the wildly unpopular Eric Greitens, who is easily tied to Hawley and McCaskill can connect them with great ease. The longer that Greitens stays in office, the harder this race becomes for Hawley to define himself rather than having McCaskill do it for her. Plus, and this gets lost in the Akin scandal, but McCaskill is a very, very savvy political strategist. Keep in mind she helped make Todd Akin happen, and in her previous two elections she ousted a sitting governor and sitting senator. She's not a wilting violet, and knows what it takes to win in the Show-Me State
 |
| Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) |
Why He's the Most Vulnerable: Money. All other Democrats on this list have issues in their campaigns, but it's hard to see them being out-raised by their opponents, but that won't be true for Bill Nelson. That's because Gov. Rick Scott, one of several candidates to basically buy their way into public office in recent years, has unlimited amounts of cash that he can tap into on the campaign trail. Nelson's fundraising has been strong, but it's impossible to imagine Scott's endless cash supply not zapping Nelson on the campaign trail. Without having the cash advantage, Nelson will need other factors (favorable environment, scandals, GOTV) to go his direction, but it puts him at a disadvantage virtually no other incumbent Democrat running in either house will have to encounter in 2018.
Why He's Not: Money isn't everything. Scott outspent both Alex Sink & Charlie Crist in his two gubernatorial campaigns nearly 3:1, and he won both elections by 1-point in deeply favorable election cycles for the GOP. He's obviously the best candidate the Florida GOP could have hoped for, and arguably the best recruit of the cycle on either side of the aisle, but the best recruit doesn't always win (just ask Jason Kander). Nelson is the toughest opponent he's faced, and has won statewide office in Florida five times without losing a single general election (and he's done so in far less favorable environments for Democrats than this), he's not just going to disappear into the night. Scott may make this competitive, but the national environment in the ultimate swing state might not let him get across the finish line.
 |
| Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) |
Why He's the Most Vulnerable: Donald Trump hates him. This isn't a tangible problem, necessarily, but Trump seems to think he's gotten one-up on Sen. Tester in recent weeks as Tester derailed (alongside, it should be added, Republican Sen. Johnny Isaakson), the nomination of Dr. Ronny Jackson to lead the VA department. Trump has publicly called for Sen. Tester to resign, and this is still a ruby-red state where Tester is going to need at least some Trump voters to back his candidacy. That's going to be difficult if Trump is going full-on against you this November. Considering his showboating, it's difficult to imagine Trump not campaigning against some of these candidates, and he's shown a dislike for Tester that he hasn't shared for other red-state Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp or Joe Manchin.
Why He's Not: Trump doesn't dictate actual race dynamics, and in this case Tester's doing well. He lucked out when Trump appointed Ryan Zinke to his Cabinet (Zinke was the leading contender to take on Tester in 2018), and when Attorney General Tim Fox also declined to run. That leaves State Auditor Matt Rosendale, who has posted unimpressive campaign numbers and is still wrestling in a primary that could turn ugly if he isn't deemed "conservative enough." One could argue that you don't need as much money in the Treasure State to compete, but that discounts the fact that you also need cash for a GOTV operation that covers a gargantuan geographic area, which Tester will be able to use to his advantage. Plus, Tester doesn't appear nervous to take on Trump, and his gruff, blunt personality works well in a state known for its independence. Before Trump's quarrel with Tester, I wouldn't have even put him on this list...perhaps the president's notoriously short memory will help out the Democratic senator with six months to go. Also, as is evidenced by Doug Jones & Conor Lamb, the president's endorsement goes only so far, even in red districts.
No comments:
Post a Comment