Any hopes the Dems may have had of winning back the Senate majority looked pretty bleak a few months ago, when five of the six Southern Dems up for re-election this year announced they’re retiring. We were at an inherent disadvantage anyway — 19 of the 34 states with Senate elections this year are currently held by a Dem, while the GOP only has to protect 15 seats — but these retirements made an uphill battle look all-but impossible.
But, as Mary Lynn F. Jones noted yesterday, 2004 has already been very kind to the Dems’ chances in the Senate. In fact, it would be hard to ask for things to have gone much better.
Two prominent Republicans have decided not to run for retiring Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell’s seat (R-Colo.), while Democrats have coalesced around state Attorney General Ken Salazar. Former Gov. Tony Knowles (D-Alaska) continues to poll well against Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). And Democrat Nancy Farmer shows signs of increasing strength against Republican Sen. Kit Bond in Missouri, according to Farmer’s internal polling.
“Without question, the Senate map is continuing to move in our direction,” the DSCC’s Cara Morris told me.
Jennifer Duffy, who follows Senate campaigns for the non-partisan Cook Political Report, agreed. “It looks better [for the Democrats] than it did six weeks ago,” she told me. Democrats’ chances of taking back the Senate have “entered the realm of possibility.”
I’m not sure if I agree with Jones’ take on Missouri — I’m yet to see Farmer within single digits of Bond — but I agree that the Senate is definitely in play now, whereas it wasn’t just a couple of months ago.
Right now, the Senate is divided 51 to 49 in the GOP’s favor. (Technically, it’s 51-48-1, but since Jim Jeffords caucuses with the Dems and will vote with us for the chamber’s leadership, it’s reasonable to just count him with us.) To win a real majority, obviously, Dems need a net gain of two seats in November. To win a functioning majority, Dems need a net gain of one in addition to a White House victory, allowing Kerry’s VP to break ties.
Looking at this way, is it so hard to believe we can go +1 and beat Bush? I don’t think so.
At this point, there are four GOP seats that look ripe for the picking. In Colorado, Ken Salazar has cleared the field and looks very strong; in Oklahoma, Brad Carson gets to sit back and watch Kirk Humphreys and Tom Coburn tear each other apart; in Alaska, Tony Knowles is leading Lisa Murkowski in the polls; and in Illinois, as I mentioned this morning, Barack Obama has to be considered the odds-on favorite.
In fact, with all four of these looking good, it offers Dems’ a little “wiggle room” in the South. And as Jones noted, things don’t even look that bad in the GOP’s favorite region.
In North Carolina, where Sen. John Edwards announced his retirement to seek the White House, Democrat Erskine Bowles will take on Rep. Richard Burr. Bowles, who lost to Elizabeth Dole in 2002, enjoys high name recognition and has shown he is willing to spend his own money to win.
In Louisiana, Sen. John Breaux is leaving but is “deeply committed to doing everything he can to keep this seat,” according to Duffy. Breaux, who is backing Rep. Chris John (D), has substantial political muscle in the state. He used it to help propel Sen. Mary Landrieu to her two victories and, most recently, to elect Kathleen Blanco governor last fall.
And in South Carolina, where Ernest Hollings is stepping down after seven terms, Inez Tenenbaum is the only Democrat running. She’s taken positions that might not sit well with some liberals — favoring the war against Iraq, for example — but fit in with the state’s conservative voters. Republicans have an “ugly primary” there, too, Duffy said.
If Dems win three out of the four competitive GOP seats I mentioned above, which is certainly possible at this point, we’d have to win three of the five Southern seats to get a 50-50 split, four of the five to get a 51-seat majority.
It’s a challenge, but it’s not impossible.