Michael Bennet (D-CO) is running for governor of Colorado. Even if he resigns his Senate seat to run or resigns because he wins, it should not change that the seat will stay blue.
As for the seat up for election, I think Hickenlooper (D) will win handedly. The only other person to declare is also a Democrat and many suspect she is running to either build a war chest or maybe replace Bennet.
tl;dr Colorado seats after 2026 election are still blue & blue.
The Hill: Mounting controversies, midterm fears strain Senate GOP’s relations with Trump:
So Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN) has announced she is running for Governor of Minnesota in the coming 2026 elections.
The other Minnesota seat in the Senate is open and it seems likely, barring an unknown disaster at this point, the winner of the Democratic primary will win the seat Tina Smith is vacating.
Am I correct in understanding Klobuchar will be able to keep the other Senate seat pending results of the gubernatorial election, when she will need to resign if she wins? And that she would then be able to appoint the person who will fill that seat until the election in 2030? Or have I missed something?
Yes, the Governor will appoint the new Senator. Perhaps Tim Walz?
There’s a history of sneaky Governor/Senator appointments. From Wikipedia:
That didn’t work well in the end. Two years later, in 1978, both Perpich and Anderson lost their reelection campaigns. I recall the line from one of the opposition television ads from that year, about Anderson’s “funny” appointment: He wanted to be Senator in the worst possible way, and he became Senator in the worst possible way.
I thought about the possibility Klobuchar could appoint Walz as her replacement, assuming she wins.
It appears Walz has ruled that out:
“I will never run for an elected office again,” Walz said. “Never again.”
Of course, that statement doesn’t rule out accepting an appointment to office but frankly, I think he’s fed up with anything close to elective politics. I could be wrong of course.
An Oberlin classmate of mine wrote a paper on governors who appointed themselves US senators (or prevailed upon a successor to do so), and far more often than not, they lost when the voters next got the chance to weigh in, IIRC.
The Hill: Republicans fear Trump backlash could cost them Senate control.
Gosh, I just love that for them.
From that link:
Senate Republicans are concerned that public backlash to President Trump’s handling of the economy and his aggressive deportation policies could give rise to a Democratic wave that not only sweeps away the House Republican majority, but also threatens their own three-seat majority in the upper chamber.
To which I reply with enthusiasm, “Boo-fucking-hoo.”
CNN: Democratic primary turnout is surging in Texas, according to early voting data
This again?
Charlie Brown, Lucy, football…
(Nothing against you, Elendil’s Heir.)
Sometimes nothing changes until everything changes all at once. We’ll see, but with hope and optimism can come the energy and hard work necessary to get real change.
True. Sorry I sounded cynical. Ten times burned, eleven times shy.
Onward, Texacrats! 
(An old, close friend works next door to the Harris County Dem HQ. I’ll ask him about the current vibes.)
Sen. Steve Daines’s (R-Mont.) last-minute retirement maneuver leaves Capitol Hill stunned — and some frustrated.
Here’s what a few online auction sites do about late bids: extend the auction if a bid comes in just before closing time. States could do the same: if someone submits their name for election on the last day, the last filing date is moved out a day until there’s a 24-hour period with no new filings. There’s still probably has to be a end date limit to avoid shenanigans.
And the R’s spend half the article talking about how they need to get their message out better, so that voters will better understand what good work they’re doing.
Get a clue, guys. People are pissed because they don’t like what you’re doing (or, in some cases, not doing.) Making sure they know what it is isn’t going to help.
Though I suspect many of them know that. That’s why a lot of them are retiring and a lot of the others are trying to keep people from voting.
ETA: Be funny if a Democrat won Montana, wouldn’t it?
I suspect the dirty nasty should-be-illegal trick will work in the sense that the Republicans are guaranteed to have a normie nominee as opposed to a MAGA nutcase.
While the Republicans have someone they can rally around, the Democrats appear to be split, with an upcoming primary and a strong independent candidacy of someone who probably would organize with the Democrats if elected. See:
Bodnar plans Senate run as an independent, and Tester’s apparent support angers Democrats in Montana
Seth Bodnar’s web presence confused me a bit:
He says he’s an independent, but his web page is hosted by ActBlue, a Democratic Party PAC. This seems a mistake if the idea is to convince Montanans you are not a party man. My last link is apparently unauthorized, but it gives a contrary impression. Maybe ActBlue should take it down.
Well, there are Democrats in Montana, and anyone running as a not-a-Republican would need the support of basically all of them, in order to have a chance. So you need some way of telling those Democrats who you are.
But at the same time, of course, you also need to get the support of a bunch of right-leaning independents, so you can’t make it too obvious who you are.
It’s definitely not a trivial needle to thread.
Yes.
I just found what is probably his real campaign web site. When you go the the “About” link, you get this (you may have to click on CONTINUE TO WEB SITE):
Candidate and Apparent Family Member Smiling Over Dead Animal
Trump beat Harris in Montana by twenty points, so a good deal of not-a-normal-Democrat signaling is needed. But splitting the Democratic Party does not look to me a good way to start.
Everyone hunts in Montana. No non-hunter would stand a chance in any race, for any party.