PDA

View Full Version : Elections 5 States where GOP might pull another Brown


The Mad Crapper
01-23-2010, 07:10 PM
Here are five states where Republicans might take a Senate seat from the Democrats this fall, in order of most to least likely to go GOP:

Arkansas. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) of Arkansas is the most endangered Senate incumbent of either party. John McCain won big here in 2008 and Senator Lincolnís job approval rating has been trending down Ė a Mason-Dixon survey released this week found that fewer than 40 percent of Arkansas voters have a favorable impression of her. Former GOP state Sen. Gilbert Baker might constitute a tough, Brown-like opponent.

Nevada. Sen. Harry Reid (D) of Nevada should be unbeatable. He was elected to the Senate in 1986 and has won reelection three times since. But the stateís tourism-dependent economy is in the tank. As majority leader, Senator Reid is vulnerable to charges that he is neglecting constituents. Earlier this month, a Mason-Dixon poll found that 52 percent of respondents viewed Reid unfavorably. In the survey, Reid trailed three possible GOP foes, including former University of Nevada-Las Vegas basketball player Danny Tarkanian.

Pennsylvania. Five-term Sen. Arlen Specter (D) of Pennsylvania was welcomed with open arms by Democrats when he announced last April that he was switching parties. Senator Specterís got lots of cash on hand and is girding for an expected race against Republican and former Rep. Pat Toomey, who almost toppled him in the primary in 2004. But the party-switch might not save Specterís seat: he hasnít gained as much among Democratic voters as he has lost among those who lean Republican.

Colorado. Sen. Michael Bennet (D) of Colorado is an incumbent who was appointed to the office after Ken Salazar resigned his senate seat to become secretary of the Interior. Senator Bennett is an electoral neophyte; his reelection bid will be his first actual run for office. Right now his approval ratings are mediocre and he is likely to draw a strong challenge in the primary. If he wins that, he might face former GOP Lt. Gov. Jane Norton in the fall.

Delaware. In Delaware, Joe Bidenís old seat is up for grabs this fall. The question is, will the vice presidentís son, the state's Democratic Attorney General Beau Biden, try to win it back for his family? Given what happened to Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, some experts now think Beau Biden might opt to stay where he is. After all, the likely GOP candidate, US Rep. Michael Castle, is formidable. Heís a nine-term congressman, former governor, and moderate whoís been a pillar of Delaware politics for a generation.

Bonus Extra. Unlike the five states listed above, North Dakota has a seat in play this fall that is almost certain to switch sides. Three-term incumbent Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) is retiring, and this rural, heavily Republican state is likely to elect a GOP senator to replace him.

---


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0122/Five-states-where-GOP-might-pull-another-Brown

Joe Seahawk
01-23-2010, 07:13 PM
Patty Murray could go down as well.. Uh.. I mean lose in 10

Bearcat2005
01-23-2010, 07:17 PM
I wish the RNSC would endorse a different Repub beside Roy Blunt, I think he will win though and keep Kit Bond's seat in the red.

patteeu
01-23-2010, 07:23 PM
And the sad reality is that even if all 6 of the seats mentioned move over into the Republican column, the democrats will still control the place.

BucEyedPea
01-23-2010, 07:30 PM
Kentucky- Rand Paul

patteeu
01-23-2010, 07:32 PM
Kentucky- Rand Paul

That seat's already held by a Republican, therefore it isn't pulling "another Brown" even if Paul wins.

2bikemike
01-23-2010, 07:40 PM
I am hoping someone can unseat Boxer. I don't think Chuck Devore has the capital to do it. Boxer has around 10 mil while Devore has raised about 3/4 of a mil.

Carly Fiorina has the capital but I fear her policy beliefs aren't quite in line with mine. It would probably be an improvement over Boxer though.

There is a small possibility that Feinstein may chase Arnolds slot at Gov.

BucEyedPea
01-23-2010, 10:30 PM
That seat's already held by a Republican, therefore it isn't pulling "another Brown" even if Paul wins.

You don't get it do you? This is a different kind of R. A real Republican. So it's like a new kind of R replacing an R. The kind we need, but which you hate.
It's gonna be a history-making moment too. Just like the Brown election. ( who is a RINO )

Taco John
01-24-2010, 03:54 AM
And the sad reality is that even if all 6 of the seats mentioned move over into the Republican column, the democrats will still control the place.


The damage they can do will be greatly hampered though.

They are so far behind where they thought they would be at this point. They wanted Healthcare and Environmental legislation in the bag going into mid-terms. But truthfully, I'm more worried about Republicans caving than I am in anything Democrats do at this point. But the beauty is that Nelson put his neck out there in the deal-making business and is getting slaughtered at home (and across the states) because of it.

In fact, I'm beginning to think that Obama might be the greatest president of all time. I mean, I've always said that it's a great man who can step into the Whitehouse and grind the gears of government to a stop. I thought that the man would have to be advocating for less government in order to get it done. Go figure.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 07:18 AM
You don't get it do you? This is a different kind of R. A real Republican. So it's like a new kind of R replacing an R. The kind we need, but which you hate.
It's gonna be a history-making moment too. Just like the Brown election. ( who is a RINO )

Yeah, I get it. You either didn't pay attention or didn't understand what the thread was about.

tmax63
01-24-2010, 07:31 AM
I'm thinking that McInnis has a better shot than Norton in CO but they are both ahead of Bennett in the current polls out here. The Reps would still need about 3 more upsets though to get the majority back to be able to stop a stacking of the SC with lib judges though.

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 09:47 AM
Yeah, I get it. You either didn't pay attention or didn't understand what the thread was about.
You're projecting again....you do the same thing OFTEN.

It's making an origination. That's allowed unless one is anal retentively literal. Allow some fluidity. ( Or do you feel THAT compelled to control the message?) It still fits in this thread because more real Republicans are needed and this will be historic.


IOWs you got nothin.

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 09:52 AM
The damage they can do will be greatly hampered though.

They are so far behind where they thought they would be at this point. They wanted Healthcare and Environmental legislation in the bag going into mid-terms. But truthfully, I'm more worried about Republicans caving than I am in anything Democrats do at this point. But the beauty is that Nelson put his neck out there in the deal-making business and is getting slaughtered at home (and across the states) because of it.

In fact, I'm beginning to think that Obama might be the greatest president of all time. I mean, I've always said that it's a great man who can step into the Whitehouse and grind the gears of government to a stop. I thought that the man would have to be advocating for less government in order to get it done. Go figure.

Unfortunately the NeoCons are coming back too.

Brown feels everyone should have HC too. He voted for RomneyCare and voted for a lot of spending as a state senator in Mass. Now, he's good for stopping this bill and it the best you can get out of Mass but I wouldn't clamor for another Brown in other state's. Gotta still keep our eyes on what kind of Rs get voted in.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 09:56 AM
You're projecting again....you do the same thing OFTEN.

It's making an origination. That's allowed unless one is anal retentively literal. Allow some fluidity. ( Or do you feel THAT compelled to control the message?) It still fits in this thread because more real Republicans are needed and this will be historic.


IOWs you got nothin.

You're a disgrace to the many good ideas that have influenced you.

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 10:31 AM
Hey, you're the one who was looking for a fight. Especially when the truth hits. And there you go projecting again. Same could be said about you.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 10:35 AM
Hey, you're the one who was looking for a fight. Esepcially when the truth hits. And there you go projecting again. Same could be said about you.

I think you'd better start ignoring me again because I'm not going to stop exposing you.

HerculesRockefell
01-24-2010, 10:59 AM
And the sad reality is that even if all 6 of the seats mentioned move over into the Republican column, the democrats will still control the place.

These are '04 seats up for grabs, which was was a good year for Republicans. A 6 seat pickup would be phenomenal in a cycle where they have more seats to defend. '10 and '12 are the years the Dems will have more seats to defend.

Colorado should be moved up from 4th. Norton was up 49-37 over Bennett in Rasmussen's poll from last week, and all 3 potential Rs were beating him.

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 11:00 AM
There's enough Ds in there that aren't hard lefties. I have no problem with them remaining. Some check is needed.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 11:09 AM
These are '04 seats up for grabs, which was was a good year for Republicans. A 6 seat pickup would be phenomenal in a cycle where they have more seats to defend. '10 and '12 are the years the Dems will have more seats to defend.

I agree with that and I actually think it might be better for conservatives if the Republicans fall short of taking the majority in either house of Congress this cycle. I just hope that they have enough solidarity to block most of what the dems try to do and I hope that the dems aren't smart enough to propose moderate-left legislation that will draw support from the more moderate/liberal Republicans in the Senate.

HerculesRockefell
01-24-2010, 11:12 AM
I agree with that and I actually think it might be better for conservatives if the Republicans fall short of taking the majority in either house of Congress this cycle.

I do too. Ungovernable majorities would be best since Barry, Harry's replacement, and Nancy would still be the face of government for the next two years.

donkhater
01-24-2010, 05:40 PM
Buc's right. Rand winning in Kentucky sends the same message, if not bigger, than the one in Mass.

Obama was actually right when he said that the same voter discontent that voted him into the White House is what propelled Brown into the Senate. The Bush administration was crony, war mongering, fiscally irresponsible central. Obama's is worse. Add all that Bush was and add cow-towing to big labor and the tree-huggers.

It's the Republicrats that are in danger.

Saul Good
01-24-2010, 06:02 PM
Buc's right. Rand winning in Kentucky sends the same message, if not bigger, than the one in Mass.

Obama was actually right when he said that the same voter discontent that voted him into the White House is what propelled Brown into the Senate. The Bush administration was crony, war mongering, fiscally irresponsible central. Obama's is worse. Add all that Bush was and add cow-towing to big labor and the tree-huggers.

It's the Republicrats that are in danger.

A Paul victory might have larger long-term impact, but it pales in comparison to Brown winning Kennedy's seat.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 06:04 PM
Buc's right. Rand winning in Kentucky sends the same message, if not bigger, than the one in Mass.

Obama was actually right when he said that the same voter discontent that voted him into the White House is what propelled Brown into the Senate. The Bush administration was crony, war mongering, fiscally irresponsible central. Obama's is worse. Add all that Bush was and add cow-towing to big labor and the tree-huggers.

It's the Republicrats that are in danger.

I think that that is ludicrous. Normally I think you make more sense than this, but there's no way that electing an unusually conservative Republican to a Kentucky seat that's been in Republican hands for a long time is anywhere near as unlikely as a Republican replacing Ted Kennedy in MA.

Furthermore, to the extent that there are people who voted for Obama because Bush spent too much and now they are disillusioned with the outcome, those people are political idiots not Paul-style conservatives.

donkhater
01-24-2010, 06:18 PM
I think that that is ludicrous. Normally I think you make more sense than this, but there's no way that electing an unusually conservative Republican to a Kentucky seat that's been in Republican hands for a long time is anywhere near as unlikely as a Republican replacing Ted Kennedy in MA.

That's because you think purely on party lines, i.e. one Republican is the same as the next. I don't happen to believe that. One of the best things that could happen is McCain losing in Arizona.

Brown's victory changed the voting structure in the Senate, which will impede this big government slide we are going down, but it didn't really solve anything IMO. He was out stumping for McCain (along with Palin) the next day, which tells me the Republicans still don't get it. The election of Paul would signal a MUCH bigger change.

Furthermore, to the extent that there are people who voted for Obama because Bush spent too much and now they are disillusioned with the outcome, those people are political idiots not Paul-style conservatives.

No, but there were independants who voted for Obama becasue they mistakingly took Bush for a conservative and thought that conservative ideals caused the finacial crisis, when in fact it wasn't any different than what Obama is doing now. People see this and want to either throw a cog into the system (by voting the 41st Republican into the Sentate) or voting out the idiot incumbants (on both sides) responsible.

Saul Good
01-24-2010, 06:30 PM
Let's look at this in reverse. If a moderate Democrat lost to a liberal Democrat in a heavily Democratic state, would you consider that to be as major as a Democrat winning a Senate race in Utah?

donkhater
01-24-2010, 06:57 PM
Let's look at this in reverse. If a moderate Democrat lost to a liberal Democrat in a heavily Democratic state, would you consider that to be as major as a Democrat winning a Senate race in Utah?

If that moderate Democrat actually voted according to his campaign platform, then yes, it could be just as major. Imagine if someone like Bayh here in Indiana did more than pay lip service to being finacially conservative. Much of this hand wringing over the 60th vote would be for naught.

The symbolism wouldn't mean as much, but I'm more about actions not symbolism.

NewChief
01-24-2010, 07:17 PM
Blanche is definitely in trouble because she's become unpopular among Democrats as well as, obviously, among conservatives. I don't know that Gilbert Baker has what it takes to take her down, though.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 09:06 PM
That's because you think purely on party lines, i.e. one Republican is the same as the next.

Yeah, all Republicans are the same. :rolleyes:

You've got a rude awakening in your future if you think there's anything like a groundswell of support for Ron Paul style Republicanism whether his son manages to win a Senate seat or not. You can't sustain a political movement on frustration with the other guy.

wild1
01-24-2010, 09:24 PM
Regarding Kentucky, what is the most recent example of a primary challenger defeating an incumbent and then going on to defeat the other party's candidate as well? There can't be any modern precedent for that, can there be?

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 09:25 PM
That's because you think purely on party lines, i.e. one Republican is the same as the next. I don't happen to believe that. One of the best things that could happen is McCain losing in Arizona.

Brown's victory changed the voting structure in the Senate, which will impede this big government slide we are going down, but it didn't really solve anything IMO. He was out stumping for McCain (along with Palin) the next day, which tells me the Republicans still don't get it. The election of Paul would signal a MUCH bigger change.

Exactly! :thumb:

Brown is another Bush-style Republican who has even said he feels everyone is "entitled" to healthcare. Just "we can do better." LOL!

Brown is a win for sure...but more a tactical one. Not a long term strategic one.

It's the Bush Republicans that just don't get it. The fervor for change is real but it ain't what the Bush Republicans brought either. The "change" message is REAL!
It's funny but the bigger share of voters don't support the FP that patteeu's pushing. The Bush Rs support that. Nor do they support the hard-left economic policies of Obama. It's like "Sophie's Choice." And no one is saying this means there's a groundswell of support for Paul Republicanism but the the issues he ran on are. He didn't run on all his stands realizing that would be unpractical at this time. You can tell who the NCs are because they go ape, much the way patteeu is acting, when you bring these points up. Besides that Rand Paul has some differences with Paul. I think he's a bit more conservative than libertarian is my take on him saying that.

Chiefshrink
01-24-2010, 09:43 PM
I agree with that and I actually think it might be better for conservatives if the Republicans fall short of taking the majority in either house of Congress this cycle. I just hope that they have enough solidarity to block most of what the dems try to do and I hope that the dems aren't smart enough to propose moderate-left legislation that will draw support from the more moderate/liberal Republicans in the Senate.

The best thing the Republicans can do at this point is just stay out of the way and let the Dems continue to "piss on their own cheerios":thumb: When radical progressive marxist lefties have a meltdown it is just best to let them be.

The only way the "conservative Repubs" return to some serious "ass kickin legislative policy power" is if the RHINOS are removed or seriously knocked down to a minimal number to where they(RHINOS) have to vote "conservative".

Michael Steele has disappointed me thus so far:shake:

Your thoughts?:shrug:

Chiefshrink
01-24-2010, 09:49 PM
Exactly! :thumb:

Brown is another Bush-style Republican who has even said he feels everyone is "entitled" to healthcare. Just "we can do better." LOL!

Brown is a win for sure...but more a tactical one. Not a long term strategic one.

It's the Bush Republicans that just don't get it. The fervor for change is real but it ain't what the Bush Republicans brought either. The "change" message is REAL!
It's funny but the bigger share of voters don't support the FP that patteeu's pushing. The Bush Rs support that. Nor do they support the hard-left economic policies of Obama. It's like "Sophie's Choice." And no one is saying this means there's a groundswell of support for Paul Republicanism but the the issues he ran on are. He didn't run on all his stands realizing that would be unpractical at this time. You can tell who the NCs are because they go ape, much the way patteeu is acting, when you bring these points up. Besides that Rand Paul has some differences with Paul. I think he's a bit more conservative than libertarian is my take on him saying that.

I think you are right about Rand being more of a "conservative" than libertarian.

donkhater
01-24-2010, 09:54 PM
It's very telling that Brown went out of his way to label himself an 'independant' even though he was on the Republican ticket. Even he knows that is the kiss of death.

The Bay State voted the right guy in (with the choice they had), but I see no real difference between him and McCain or Palin. Of course, there wasn't really that much difference between Obama and McCain but you can't convince some people of that.

wazu
01-24-2010, 10:13 PM
In fact, I'm beginning to think that Obama might be the greatest president of all time. I mean, I've always said that it's a great man who can step into the Whitehouse and grind the gears of government to a stop. I thought that the man would have to be advocating for less government in order to get it done. Go figure.

You do remember the "stimulus", don't you?

Chiefshrink
01-24-2010, 10:18 PM
It's very telling that Brown went out of his way to label himself an 'independant' even though he was on the Republican ticket. Even he knows that is the kiss of death.

The Bay State voted the right guy in (with the choice they had), but I see no real difference between him and McCain or Palin. Of course, there wasn't really that much difference between Obama and McCain but you can't convince some people of that.

We will see in due time if Brown is just a RHINO.

patteeu
01-25-2010, 06:42 AM
Regarding Kentucky, what is the most recent example of a primary challenger defeating an incumbent and then going on to defeat the other party's candidate as well? There can't be any modern precedent for that, can there be?

I don't know, why do you ask? There isn't an incumbent running in this race.

patteeu
01-25-2010, 06:57 AM
I find it hilarious when some of the nuttier Paul supporters (eg BEP) profess a belief that the American people want their form of extreme non-interventionism when there is no electoral evidence of that at all. Both parties routinely reject fringe candidates with these beliefs and continue to nominate candidates that believe to one degree or another that the US should remain engaged globally. There is an inevitable level of war weariness after 8 years of war, but no appetite for Paulian/Kucinichian isolationism at all.

It's the height of self-delusion to believe that there is strong support for both that naive foreign policy AND a slash-and-burn approach to the welfare state just one year after the candidate who ran on that platform failed to make even a ripple in the electoral pool.

You people crack me up. ROFL

patteeu
01-25-2010, 07:03 AM
We will see in due time if Brown is just a RHINO.

I don't think there is any way that he will vote as a strong conservative as a Senator for the state of MA unless he's happy with a one-and-done Senate career. I suspect that it's fair to expect him to be pretty similar to GWB (anti-tax, pro-defense, soft on big government), which isn't perfect but it is a heck of a lot better than Ted Kennedy (and probably a little better than Olympia Snowe).

donkhater
01-25-2010, 07:56 AM
I find it hilarious when some of the nuttier Paul supporters (eg BEP) profess a belief that the American people want their form of extreme non-interventionism when there is no electoral evidence of that at all. Both parties routinely reject fringe candidates with these beliefs and continue to nominate candidates that believe to one degree or another that the US should remain engaged globally. There is an inevitable level of war weariness after 8 years of war, but no appetite for Paulian/Kucinichian isolationism at all.

It's the height of self-delusion to believe that there is strong support for both that naive foreign policy AND a slash-and-burn approach to the welfare state just one year after the candidate who ran on that platform failed to make even a ripple in the electoral pool.

You people crack me up. ROFL

I'm not saying that the majority of people agree with Paul at all on his foreign policy. Yet. Slowly, though, the electorate is becoming more educated and aware of just what the government is spending those trillions of tax dollars on and why on earth our government can't function on that ungodly amount that we have to borrow from China.

It's just like Medicare. Wildly popular, but in the end is completely unsustainable. That's not an opinion. THAT IS FACT. World occupation, social security and medicare/aid is unsustainable. It's simple math.

Funny how 50,000+ armed forces in Afghanistan prevented a teenager from Nigeria to hop a plane in Yemen and attack America. Don't kid yourself. That was a successful attack. The fact that his apparatus failed was dumb luck. Sure am glad those troops in Afghanistan prevented such a thing. :rolleyes:

patteeu
01-25-2010, 08:19 AM
I'm not saying that the majority of people agree with Paul at all on his foreign policy. Yet. Slowly, though, the electorate is becoming more educated and aware of just what the government is spending those trillions of tax dollars on and why on earth our government can't function on that ungodly amount that we have to borrow from China.

It's just like Medicare. Wildly popular, but in the end is completely unsustainable. That's not an opinion. THAT IS FACT. World occupation, social security and medicare/aid is unsustainable. It's simple math.

Funny how 50,000+ armed forces in Afghanistan prevented a teenager from Nigeria to hop a plane in Yemen and attack America. Don't kid yourself. That was a successful attack. The fact that his apparatus failed was dumb luck. Sure am glad those troops in Afghanistan prevented such a thing. :rolleyes:

I specified BEP as one of the "nuttier Paul supporters", but I leave it to the reader to identify anyone else who fits that description. There are a lot of Paul supporters who I don't think fall in that category and so far, at least, I don't have any reason to think you do.

I don't know what you mean by world occupation, but our current defense expenditures are affordable, IMO. I agree that entitlements are unsustainable and I've said on many occasions that those programs are the source of our country's financial problems.

As for your Afghanistan troops versus Yemeni terror plot analysis, I think it's funny too. I find your analysis laughable. You have no way of knowing how many attacks have been or will be stopped by those troops so you simply ignore the possibility. Maybe withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan would have prevented that one attack, but then again, maybe it would have emboldened our enemies and led to even more attacks. OTOH, maybe more aggressive intervention in Yemen would have prevented the attack. It's impossible to know for sure, but we do know that if we retreat from the world, rivals will fill the vacuum and we'll have a smaller voice in global commerce. Maybe you find that attractive, but I don't.

donkhater
01-25-2010, 08:38 AM
That demonstrates amazing levels of disconnection when you can state so haphazardly that our current defense expenditures are 'affordable'.

Over 700 bases worldwide and an operation in Afghanastan that costs $1 million/year/soldier is your idea of affordable?

The Brown win, I have a feeling, is a case of one step forward, two steps back.

patteeu
01-25-2010, 09:02 AM
That demonstrates amazing levels of disconnection when you can state so haphazardly that our current defense expenditures are 'affordable'.

Over 700 bases worldwide and an operation in Afghanastan that costs $1 million/year/soldier is your idea of affordable?

The Brown win, I have a feeling, is a case of one step forward, two steps back.

If the amount we spend on domestic programs, including entitlements had grown at the same rate as defense spending over the past few decades, we'd have a huge surplus right now. It's not a haphazard take at all. In your words, "[t]hat's not an opinion. THAT IS FACT".

HerculesRockefell
01-25-2010, 09:24 AM
Beau Biden said he's running for AG re-election today and not for his dad's old Senate seat.

The likelihood of an R pickup just went way up.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 11:38 AM
And here are the house seats in play:

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/28-house-seats-move-toward-gop.html

After a stunning GOP Senate win in Massachusetts and a slew of new polls showing many Democratic incumbents in trouble, it’s hard to argue with the obvious: the Republicans unquestionably have momentum as 2010 begins.

We are adding a dozen new seats to our list of districts “in play” – all of them currently held by Democrats. In addition, we have moved 16 districts within our list – two held by the GOP and the rest currently represented by a Democrat. All of the moves benefit the GOP, either because Republican districts now look safer or Democratic districts appear more vulnerable.

Given that we expect more Democratic retirements in the next few months and anticipate that more Democratic-held districts will increase in vulnerability between now and the fall, we are raising our target for GOP gains to 24 to 28 seats, with higher Republican gains possible. Of course, changes in the national mood between now and November could also benefit Democrats.

In addition, we can no longer dismiss the possibility of a Republican wave so large that Democrats could lose their House majority. We stress, however, that we currently expect Republicans to fall short of the 40 seats they would need. Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts doesn’t mean that every Republican candidate will win in November.

Here are our latest House ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans



Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 9 D)

AR 1 (Open; Berry, D) *

AR 2 (Open; Snyder, D) *
CO 4 (Markey, D)
IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
MI 7 (Schauer, D) *
NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
WA 3 (Open; Baird, D)
Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0 R, 10 D)

AL 2 (Bright, D) *
FL 8 (Grayson, D) *
ID 1 (Minnick, D) *
KS 3 (Open; Moore, D)
MD 1 (Kratovil, D) *
MS 1 (Childers, D) *
NM 2 (Teague, D)
OH 1 (Driehaus, D) *
OH 15 (Kilroy, D) *
VA 5 (Perriello, D)
Lean Republican (3 R, 2 D)

CA 3 (Lungren, R)
LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D) *
PA 6 (Gerlach, R) *
TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D)
WA 8 (Reichert, R) *
Republican Favored (8 R, 0 D)

CA 44 (Calvert, R)
CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
MN 3 (Paulsen, R)
MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
NE 2 (Terry, R)
OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
PA 15 (Dent, R)
Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (0 R, 3 D)

FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
IL 14 (Foster, D)
VA 2 (Nye, D) *
Lean Democratic (0 R, 11 D)

HI 1 (Open; Abercrombie, D) Special Election
IN 9 (Hill, D) *
MO 4 (Skelton, D)
NV 3 (Titus, D)
NY 1 (Bishop, D) *
NY 19 (Hall, D)
NY 23 (Owens, D)
NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
NY 29 (Massa, D)
SC 5 (Spratt, D) *
WV 1 (Mollohan, D) *
Democrat Favored (2 R, 23 D)

AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
AZ 8 (Giffords, D) *
CO 3 (Salazar, D) *
CA 11 (McNerney, D) *
CA 47 (Sanchez, D)
DE A-L (Open; Castle, R)
GA 8 (Marshall, D)
IA 3 (Boswell, D)
LA 2 (Cao, R)
NY 13 (McMahon, D) *
NY 20 (Murphy, D)
NC 8 (Kissell, D)
ND A-L (Pomeroy, D) *
NJ 3 (Adler, D) *
OH 16 (Boccieri, D)
OH 18 (Space, D)
PA 4 (Altmire, D) *
PA 8 (Murphy, D) *
PA 10 (Carney, D)
PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
PA 17 (Holden, D) *
SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D)
TX 17 (Edwards, D)
VA 9 (Boucher, D) *
WI 8 (Kagen, D)
Total seats in play: 72
Republican seats: 14
Democratic seats: 58