How does ‘Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’ sound?

September 27, 2005

National Journal’s Charlie Cook, probably the best non-partisan election analyst in the country, had an interesting subscriber-only column today about the Dems’ chances of taking back the Senate next year. It’s surprisingly encouraging.

The House, for a variety of reasons, may be just out of reach. But Cook said the notion that it would take “a political tidal wave” for the GOP to lose the Senate is just wrong.

In fact, tidal waves are rarely necessary. In 1998, when the political environment tilted slightly in favor of Democrats, Dems won five of the seven competitive races that year. Two years later, Dems won seven of nine toss ups and gained a 50-50 split in the chamber. In 2002, with the playing field tilted slightly in the Republicans’ direction, the GOP won six out of nine of the most competitive races. Two years later, they won eight out of nine “toss up” races.

Next year, with conditions apparently tilting back towards the Dems, there are seven Republican-held seats are now in play, which would grow to eight if Trent Lott retires.

They are the seats held by Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

In every one of those races, assuming Paul Hackett runs in Ohio, Dems have recruited a very credible challenger. And if Lott retires, there are several top-tier Dems who’d make the race interesting.

How many seats to Dems need to pick up to win the chamber outright? Six. Looking ahead, is that doable? You bet.

Consider this your morale-boost for the day.

I think there are good prospects in both the Senate and the House. But note that there are some open and vulnerable senate seats on the Democratic side, making the full equation win six from the bad guys and hold all the current Dem seats.

  • Let’s not get carried away here. It’s doable, but the likelihood is pretty slim. And as Reidmc points out, the Democrats have some vulnerabilities on their own side as well.

    Minnesota and Maryland are both in what I would classify as pretty extreme jeopardy. The Democratic candidates in Maryland are second tier, *at best*, and they’re up against a seasoned Republican candidate. The seat is, at this time, unlikely as a hold. Maryland is in danger for the Democrats, with the primary getting more and more crowded by the day, with none of the candidates being exceptional (though a couple would rank first tier status) and a strong Republican opponent. The fact that there will be a left-leaning independent in the race also is a point of concern.

    Then there’s North Dakota. Gov. John Hoeven has repeatedly declined to rule out the race, and has been very coy about it. This leads me to conclude that there’s a fair chance he’ll jump in the race, and current polling has him above Sen. Conrad. Florida is also not a lock, even though Sen. Nelson leads his only declared candidate. The White House will continue to mount pressure behind the scenes on other top tier candidates to get into this race… and the fact is, even against Rep. Katherine Harris, Sen. Nelson’s numbers are not within the safety zone.

    Now, some of the Republican vulnerables you’ve highlighted are long-shots at best. Aside from RI, PA, and *maybe* MO, none of those vulnerable seats can be reasonably considered either likely to switch or as toss-ups. You’ve highlighted the election results in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004, and which party won most of the contested seats in each election. But, it’s important to keep in mind that few of those party switches or vulnerable holds were classified as long-shots — they were all reliably pegged as toss-ups or likely switches/holds. Further, most of the close races in the preceding election cycles were considered that way from the start — in few instances did a long-shot race really develop into a true toss-up. The one big exception is Kentucky 2004.

    That’s eleven seats in play; the Democrats would have a very, very hard time winning enough of those to regain the Senate, and I think it’s very important to keep that in mind. The optimism at this point is… premature, and reminds me a whole lot of the optimism many people felt in the months before the 2004 Presidential election. While conditions are bad right now for the GOP, the vote isn’t for another year. And as everyone who has watched politics for any length of time knows, a lot can (and usually does) happen in the span of a year.

  • No need to be overly negative either. All of these races are possible and I would add Virginia if Warner decides to jump into the race. Several Republicans can and probably will be tarnished by the growing DeLay and friends scandal. Maryland will have a very strong candidate for Governor this year and that will help keep this very Democratic state in the Senate Dem column as well. In many respects, 2002 was a fluke, due in large part to 9/11 and the country’s willingness to support what people saw as a need to come together. That “good will” is gone. We will have been fighting a war in Iraq for well over 3 years by the time November 06 comes around and the deficit is only betting bigger every day. Bill Clinton proved you CAN get rid of a deficit and voters will be reminded of that. I think there is a lot to be positive about!

  • The Dems need to wage a systematic and unified campaign of “throw the bums out”. I think it is possible to swing many more races than are thought to be in play if they systematically go after Republicans as a group, and offer a clear and unified alternative. Newt’s Contract with America and Truman’s railing against the do-nothing congress are the models to follow, adapted for the current ‘perfect storm’ of Republican corruption, cronyism, and incompetence.

  • “No need to be overly negative either.”

    Terry,

    My analysis may not yield the results you desire, but that doesn’t make it overly negative — simply realistic. All the stuff you said after sounds nice, but they essentially equate to soundbites, mantras, and slogans. They’re reassuring and they’re great to say, but the actual, individual races are still what matter most, and those races have to be analysed realistically… realistically, the likelihood is very slim that enough of those races will be won by the Democratic candidates in 2006.

    Incidentally, Mark Warnever is extraordinarily unlikely to get in the VA Senate race. He has already ruled that out, rather emphatically.

    Regarding Maryland: Yes, the candidate for governor (I see O’Malley as the eventual challenger in that race) is very strong, but the senatorial race is not going to be won by the gubernatorial race. It is at this time a very real possibility that the Democrats will win the governorship of Maryland, but lose Sen. Sarbanes’ seat, all while holding their strength in the state legislature and House delegation.

  • jbryan,

    can you break it down for us line by line? e.g.:
    State; Incumbant overview and prediction; net Dem gain, running Dem gain

    Florida; Nelson (D) weak but likely win;+1 Dem; +1 Dem
    Ohio; DeWine (R) weak but likely win; +1 GOP; 0 Dem
    etc.

    I’d love to see it broken out nice and easy to read like that. That way I can see where my differing analysis results in a different outcome.

    Thanks in advance!

  • Im expose after expose the Republican Party will grow old more and more out of joint.the House Republicans will break first but the Senate Republicans will follow closely behind.. Unity and loyalty are wonderful traits but in order to practice and politicians must be elected and is where the rub comes in. Then too historically speaking we can reasonably look forward to unreasonable things happening.
    One of these happenings could possibly be a up rising in the ranks of both Democratic and Republican voters. But one frame is for sure it will be fun to watch.

  • The idea of doing a Daschle on Frist is absolutlely mouth-watering.

    Get ‘im! Get ‘im! Get ‘im!

    I want to boot that bible-thumping corporate robber baron out on his ass in the most humiliating manner possible.

    Revenge, my friends. Revenge. I’d be thrilled to see ads of that fuckwit giving a rim job to Bin Laden, roadblocked all over Tenesseee television.

  • Edo:

    Sure thing. I’ll write one up right now.

    Goatchowder:

    “The idea of doing a Daschle on Frist is absolutlely mouth-watering. ”

    Sen. Frist is not standing for reelection in 2006; he is retiring from the Senate. The most likely GOP candidates for the open seat will be either former Rep. Ed Bryant, or former Rep. Van Hilleary. The Democratic nominee will almost certainly be Rep. Harold Ford Jr.

  • Edo,

    Here’s the detailed analytical breakdown you’ve requested, with the eleven seats likely to be competitive in one form or another.

    First, let me preface my remarks with a notation regarding this particular class of senators and the quite impressive seat turnaround the Democrats had in 2000, the last time this class was up for election. In that year, Democrats had a five seat net gain (defeating Republicans in DE, WA, MN, MO, MI, while losing an incumbent in VA; open seats changed hands in both FL and NV). The big reason for this victory? Most of the unseated Republicans were vulnerable freshmen of the 1994 Contract with America. Most of them were too conservative for their states and won courtesy of a nationwide sweep. So, looking at the Democratic success in 2000 might lead one to expect similar results this time around, but bear in mind the following: most of the weak members of that class were already knocked out in 2000; those up this year are either more seasoned, or lack the 94 freshmen’s ideological extremity and lack of political accumen. Don’t expect history to repeat itself necessarily.

    Also, please bear in mind that my analysis at this point is tentative, and is always subject to change as the facts change, and they are entirely likely to do so given the amount of time between now and the election.

    Now, moving on to the particular seats in play…
    1. PA – Incumbent: Rick Santorum (R). Two-term Santorum is being challenged by state Treasurer (formerly state Auditor, and in 2002, a candidate for governor) Bob Casey, son of the late Gov. Bob Casey. Casey, upon entering this race, went almost immediately to a formidable lead over the incumbent in all polling; he’s well financed and well liked in the state, and is a top tier candidate, having won election to statewide office three times prior. Unless he makes some serious blunders — I mean the kind that are truly mortifying to imagine — he’s likely to unseat the incumbent.

    Result: Likely Democratic victory. +1D.

    2. RI – Incumbent: Lincoln Chafee (R). Chafee is the son of longtime senator John Chafee; while a candidate for the seat of his retiring father, the senior Chafee died. Lincoln was appointed to the seat and then won reelection. He’s now seeking his first full term. The top Democratic challenger, Rep. James Langevin, was ahead of the incumbent in polling, but declined to make the race, leaving two candidates: first, state Secretary of State Matt Brown, and second, former state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse. Both, despite having won statewide election, are poorly known — this is not a count in their favour. Further, Whitehouse has already demonstrated electoral weakness, having twice failed to defeat the dreadful Myrtle York in gubernatorial primaries. Polls show Chafee as extremely weak, but neither of these two are in what could be vaguely considered respectable competition at the moment. They’re going to have to work very, very hard to capitalise on Chafee’s vulnerability, but they have won statewide office and so possess the skills necessary to make this a competitve race.

    Result: Likely Republican victory. Still +1D.

    3. MN – Open Seat (currently D). Retiring Sen. Mark Dayton leaves this as an open race. Dayton was one of the more surprising victories in the 2000 elections, unseating Sen. Rod Gramms, a weak but largely forgettable member of the ’94 CwA freshman class. Dayton wasn’t a great senator, either, though, so now he’s leaving. The Republican candidate will be Rep. Mark Kennedy, a top tier contender, who is well funded, has a record of success, and is politically experienced. The Democratic candidates, it gives me no pleasure to say, are barely second tier… if that. While it may register many points on the ironic amusement scale for one party to challenge a successful congressman seeking a senatorial seat with a woman whose only notable is having *lost* to that same congressman in seeking his House seat, it does not a competitive election make. The Democratic Party is running never-were’s here, and they’re going to lose.

    Result: Likely Republican victory. Back to +/- 0.

    4. MO – Incumbent: Sen. Jim Talent (R). This election is a bit funny. Jim Talent defeated incumbent (appointed, not elected) Sen. Jean Carnahan; he was a congressman who ran for Governor in 2000, losing to the eventual victor Bob Holden. However, Talent then parlayed that skilled run into a Senate victory two years later. We now find ourselves in 2005: state Auditor Claire McCaskill challenged and defeated Holden (the same one who beat Talent) in a primary, but lost the general gubernatorial election. She ran well, though, nearly winning, and now she’s using her high name recognition and popularity to take on Talent. This race will likely be developing into the greatest real toss-up of the next election cycle. As of right now, I’m inclined to think she’ll win.

    Result: Possibly Democratic victory. +1D.

    The rest coming up shortly.

  • 5. MD – Open Seat (currently D). This seat is currently held by retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes. On the Democratic side, the top nominees are Rep. Ben Cardin and former Rep. (and former NAACP president) Kweisi Mfume. There are a host of other minor candidates such as historian Allan Lichtman and Lise van Susteran (sister of Greta). On the Republican side, there’s Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. Mfume is scandal-tarred, and will likely be beaten by the more experienced Cardin. Cardin’s a down-the-line party man who’s done little to distinguish himself in the House, and is primarily getting the primary nod out of the sense that it’s his due for sticking around long enough. He’ll, similarly, do little to excite the electorate. Steele holds statewide office, but was never elected in his own right, only getting the office by being selected as Gov. Robert Ehrlich’s running mate. Prior to that, he had no campaign experience. It’s a bit… impolitic to say it, but the fact that he’s a black Republican (and not a lunatic like Alan Keyes) certainly doesn’t hurt him, electorally or financially (expect it to prompt more national Republican contributions and top-name visits to MD than you can possibly imagine, because the prestige of having him in office would due too much for the party); what will hurt is the lack of direct campaign experience. I will tell you right now that electing Steele will be one of *the* highest Republican priorities in 2006, and the fact that the Democrats are failing to mount a more interesting candidate is to their detriment, though Cardin is still first tier, as a sitting congressman. It’ll likely be a Cardin victory, but closer than Senate contests in Maryland usually are.

    Result: Likely Democratic victory. Still +1D.

    6. FL – Incumbent: Sen. Bill Nelson (D). He’s being challenged by Rep. Katherine Harris, whom I trust requires no introduction on my part. Probably the only worse candidate the FL GOP could mount would be former Rep. McCollum, the man Nelson defeated in 2000. That being said, FL has been drifting Republican, and Nelson isn’t strikingly popular — bear in mind that he is the *only* statewide elected Democrat in the state, which also has its entire legislature Republican-controlled. His victory will not be as overwhelming against Harris as current polling might lead one to think — it’ll be in the margin of four, five points. Just hope that Gen. Tommy Franks and Gov. Jeb Bush don’t get in.

    Result: Likely Democratic victory. Still +1D.

    7. OH – Incumbent: Sen Mike DeWine (R). DeWine is vulnerable, being the weaker-by-far of the state’s two Republican senators, and the Republican Party in this particular state is, as I’m sure you’ve heard, in political meltdown right now as a result of party-wide scandals and a governor who has already been convicted of actual crimes. All of this has had an effect on DeWine, who polls weakly, approval-wise. Nevertheless, the top-tier candidates interested in the race, Reps. Tim Ryan and Sherrod Brown, both took a pass, noting that despite DeWine’s weak approval, they lagged significantly in head-to-heads, even in partisan polling. So now the task goes to Paul Hackett, who ran a very nice campaign for one of the state’s reddest House districts this year. He’s viewed as something of a political wunderkind right now, a Democratic up-and-comer. And he is a really good candidate, make no mistake. But despite his close race, he still hasn’t won anything yet. And the issues that were salient in his campaign this year — the things that propelled him so far — are less likely to be at the top of the news in November of 2006. The state Republican Party will not be in such chaotic disarray at that point, either, though it will still be politically weakened. He has all the makings of a close competitor, but it’s questionable whether he’s likely to achieve victory in the end. Nevertheless, I’ll go ahead and mark him as a possible victory.

    Result: Possible Democratic victory. +2D.

    8. MT – Incumbent: Sen. Conrad Burns (R). Much is made of Burns’ vulnerability, as a result of his near-loss in 2000 to now-Gov. Brian Schweitzer. But while this was certainly due in part to Burns’ unpopularity, it was also due to Schweitzer’s pretty remarkable political skills. The current candidates, Tester and Morrisson, are no Schweitzers, so this campaign won’t play out like 2000. They *are* good candidates, though, top tier ones. The low population of the state does mean, also, that small vote shifts can swing an election. It’s likely to be a Republican victory, though. Burns is vulnerable, and these two will give him a close race, but won’t go quite all the way.

    Result: Likely Republican victory. Still +2D.

  • jbryan. That’s a lot of real useful and interesting information up there. Thanks for taking the time to lay it all out.

  • And, lastly:

    9. TN – Open Seat (currently R). The Dem nominee will be Rep. Ford, and the Republican nominee will be either Ed Bryant or Van Hilleary. Bryant is too Club for Growth-ish, and I’d bet in Hilleary (who is no less ideologically extreme). Lots of hopes are pinned here, but… Tennesee’s been trending steadily Republican, Gov. Phil Bredesen’s 2002 victory notwithstanding, and there are just way, WAY too many skeletons in Ford’s closet. His family problems aren’t necessarily the least of his worries, though they should be worrying him. There’s also the fact that he’s viewed by many as too opportunistic, and has alienated many potential allies through such a trait. Plus, geographically, he’s from the exact wrong part of the state to go and win a successful statewide race. This is going to be a 10 point loss, and Ford will go the way of Bob Clement, Inez Tennenbaum, Alex Sanders, and a host of others.

    Result: Likely Republican victory. Still +2D.

    10. AZ – Incumbent: Sen Jon Kyl (R). Kyl is not the most popular politician in the state (Gov. Janet Napolitano and Sen. John McCain both beat him easily). But self-financing former party chair Jim Pederson isn’t a candidate who’s going to beat him. Self-financing candidates are typically long-shots: for every Mark Dayton, there are a dozen more failures you probably won’t even remember (Maria Cantwell, let’s not forget, had previous political success, having won elective office before she began a financial success). His political skills are completely untested, and while Kyl is unexceptional in every way, he’s not made any serious missteps that would allow for a strong campaign.

    Result: Likely Republican victory. Still +2D.

    11. ND – Incumbent: Sen Kent Conrad (D). There’s not much to say on this race at this time, because it all hinges on whether or not Gov. John Hoeven, whose popularity ratings are astronomic, decides to enter the race. The signs at this time, I have to say, point that he’s leaning to yes.

    Thus concludes the analysis.

  • re: Minnesota –

    Kennedy is not a very strong candidate. No charisma; all soundbites and third-party attack ads and tied at the hip to Bush.

    On the Dem side, Amy Klobuchar may not be a state-wide figure, but her father is (beloved feature journalist) and as a prosecuting attorney she is safe from the “wimpy Dem” charge. She will run an aggresive campaign. Plus everyone here has had it with Bush and anyone close to him. Coleman is lucky he is not running in ’06.

    This will be tight, but I like the Dem chances in Minnesota.

  • One might be more encouraged if the Democrats actually stood for something besides feckless dithering.

    • Comments are closed.