I agree with Clarence below that it is highly unlikely that HRC will become Majority Leader anytime in the near future, much less Majority Leader with a filibuster-proof majority. Even setting aside the enmity she might be engendering with her quixotic bid for President, I just don’t see her leapfrogging past Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, and Byron Dorgan.
But a filibuster-proof majority is by no means outside of the realm of possibility. Below is my chart of how I currently see the races. The categorizations are simple. Safe means that I can’t envision the other side winning. “Likely” means that it is almost impossible for me to see the other side winning. For example, in VA it would require either Warner being named the Veep candidate or the absolute collapse of the Obama campaign. For NJ it would require a major gaffe by Lautenberg (not impossible, given his age), and probably also require the collapse of the Obama campaign (which I don’t view as impossible).
There are some “tweeners” in the safe category — ID, KS, and NE on the Republican side and SD, MA, and IA on the Dem side — races that could conceivably be competitive given the quality of the opposition, the nature of the state, and/or problems with the incubment (have you seen Kerry’s approval ratings lately). But I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that these races become competitive, even if it is possible.
Given that, Democrats basically start this cycle out with a floor of 51 seats. The problem for Republicans is that there is only one Democratic race in play. An additional 11 Republican seats are in various states of play.
Lean races mean that it is not difficult to imagine a victory by the other side, but that the playing field currently favors one candidate or the other. NH and NM are races that could be placed in the “Likely” category. But I think that Udall is awfully liberal for New Mexico (he’s a co-sponsor of Kucinich’s Department of Peace for crying out loud), and Sununu has a massive cash advantage over Shaheen (who, given her three terms as governor, is something of an incumbent herself, which is why her polling numbers don’t bother me as much). And McCain will likely perform well in these states. I expect the Dems to win these races, but it wouldn’t take an act of God for them to lose, as with the “likely” category.
On the Republican side, KY and TX are two races where polling has showed challengers within a few points of the incumbent (The balance of the KY polls show McConnell more around 50%). Neither incumbent has great approval ratings. That said, the incumbents have a massive cash-on-hand advantage over their challengers. I suspect they will pull through, if for no other reason than the partisan affiliation of their states and Obama’s likely poor performance there. These races strike me as kind of Kyl-Pederson in 2006.
An argument could be made for placing ME, MN, and/or OR in the Slight Lean category. But as I said, this is where I suspect that things will end up, not where I necessarily think things are now. ME is almost certainly placed correctly; I think that Collins is a good fit for her state; indeed a better fit than Allen. Remember, Maine ain’t exactly Rhode Island. MN and OR are closer calls, but given Franken’s troubles (which are just now beginning, I think) and Smith’s persona (his approvals are now back over 50%), I expect they’ll win.
Which brings me to the “Slight Lean” category. These are really tossups, but not calling a state is for wussies, as far as I’m concerned. I give Udall the slight edge in CO and Landrieu the slight edge in LA, although no one really knows how things will look in November. CO is trending blue, but I’m not sure it is trending liberal; remember, this the state voted to ban gay marriage, deny civil unions, and nearly voted against raising the minimum wage in 2004. The formula for CO Democrats has been to run moderate Democrats like Ritter and Salazar; 2008 will be a test to see if things can be pushed farther to the left. I could easily see either race flipping.
That leaves Dole, Wicker, and Stevens. I don’t have to go into the problems for the three of them. Stevens seems the most likely to lose, although Begich has problems of his own, and Lisa Murkowski trailed in polls for most of 2004 before winning against Knowles. Wicker has time to right the ship, and Musgrove is a former Governor who arguably should be treated as more of an incumbent than Wicker for purposes of polling. But Musgrove will likely benefit from a huge black turnout from the Obama campaign. That leaves Dole in NC. I think she is in real trouble. Part of the polling problem is that Hagan just won a competitive primary, and is benefitting from good publicity from that. But Dole isn’t an especially gifted campaigner, and this state will likely have massive African American turnout as well in 2008. That’s trouble.
So in short, as of right now I expect Dems to come out with a 55-seat majority. But it wouldn’t take a great leap for them to get to 58. Beyond that, even 63 would be within the realm of possibility.
Combined with an Obama presidency, and what is likely coming in the House, that should make conservatives very, very uncomfortable, with or without a Hillary Clinton majority leadership.
|
Safe R |
Likely R |
Lean R |
Slight Lean R |
Slight Lean D |
Lean D |
Likely D |
Safe D |
|
AL |
KY |
AK |
CO |
NH |
NJ |
AR |
|
|
GA |
ME |
MS (2) |
LA |
NM |
VA |
DE |
|
|
ID |
MN |
NC |
IA |
||||
|
KS |
OR |
IL |
|||||
|
MS (1) |
TX |
MA |
|||||
|
NE |
MI |
||||||
|
OK |
MT |
||||||
|
SC |
RI |
||||||
|
TN |
SD |
||||||
|
WY(1) |
WV |
||||||
|
WY(2) |
|||||||
|
11 |
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
26 not up |
|
39 not up |
May 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am
It doesn’t make me uncomfortable at all. My life will go on regardless of who wins.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I can’t believe how badly the people on this site want to believe the Republicans will lose.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Clarence,
It’s not wanting to lose, it’s objectively looking at the polls and the circumstances around each race.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I know, I looked at the polls objectively also and came to the conclusion that it is next to impossible for the Democrats to get to 60. They might get to 59, but 59 isn’t 60.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Sean,
These look really accurate.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
No they don’t.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Why does CO slighlty lean D? Every poll shows it to be a very close, tight race?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Clarence, what are your specific objections to this?
I realize that we are still 5 months away, but the author of this post has an extraordinary knack for nailing political predictions in his young career.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
These look more or less spot-on to me.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Let’s not forgot that if the Democrats do manage to get to 58-59 seats, it’s definitely not out of the realm of possibility to see a few liberal/moderate Republicans switch the the Democrats or go independent and caucus with the Dems, a la Jim Jeffords.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
First of all, if things go as he expects, that is a 4 seat gain. They need a 9 seat gain to make it filibuster-proof. As far as the specific ratings, there is not much difference between this and the Cook Political Report ratings I cited. I’m not sure what the point of this post was, except to increase pessimism and negativity.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
My guess is that we lose VA, CO, NH, and one from the trifecta of OR, AK, and MN.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
LJ, there will be no moderates left under your scenario. Collins would have to lose for the Dems to get that high. Chafee and Jeffords are gone. John Warner is leaving. Stevens would have to lose also, and he is a moderate. The only two moderates in the whole Senate would be Specter and Snowe. I don’t see either of them switching.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
If Kavon is right, that adds up to four. Four does not equal nine. The storm would have to be perfect for the Democrats to get to 60, and I think it is a fairy tale, but it makes for a juicy post to talk about how scary it could be with 60 Democrats.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I don’t know about Snowe – but Specter won’t switch. He’s always been a liberal Republican at heart.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I’d move Kentucky over to the slight lean D category. The last poll to come out for that race showed Lunsford (D) winning by 5 points… also, I’d probably rate Alaska as slight lean D as well.
My guess is the Dems will pick up 5-6 seats in November, leading to a 57-43 split. Close enough to 60 to effectively be filibuster proof.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The point is that of the 2 dem seats that are up, one is untouchable. And that none of the seats that are in play fall into “likely R”. That there are three ways the national election can go; either it is well divided (bad for us), there is a strong R spark (still not great for us), or there is a strong D spark (catastrophic for us).
Even if we have an excellent cycle, we could easily be down 51-49.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I would put OR as slight lean R as well, and am waiting with great anticipation to see any polls on the race.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
If the Dems do get close to 60 they’re not going to be able to sustain it for very long. The party will overreach and then the GOP will be able to tie Ben Nelson and other red-state Democrats to the national party.
Then the pendulum swings back.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Adam: which is precisely what will happen if Obama wins in November. 2010 will be a great year for Congressional Republicans, and 2012 will be a great year for GOP White House aspirations.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
It’s a class thing with people like Snowe and Collins, and Christie Whitman. Democrats are the dirty working class, the laborers. They want nothing to do with them. Enlightened liberals like them were traditionally Republicans, not Democrats. Their children are going for Obama, while the children of yesterday’s Democrats are going for Clinton.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Matt C,
Right on. I’d still much rather have the presidency than the congress if we have to choose one or the other.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Clarence,
I think the point of Sean’s post is that it is certainly not a “fairy tale” for us to lose 9 seats in November.
Look at what we consider safe seats such as in MS. Wicker could certainly lose there as the recent results of MS-1 just showed us. Kentucky is not out of the realm of possibility either because the KY GOP is down in the dumps due to corruption scandals. Now at the end of the day do I think that McConnell will lose? No. But it is more possible than you think it is.
The GOP actually losing every single one of the VA, CO, NH, OR, MN, AK is also within the realm of possibility. I would say that the odds are only like 40/60 against. It’s pretty easy to get to 9 if all these seats go.
Again, is this likely? No. But it is certainly within the realm of possibility if we do not get out act together.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
In Norse religion the Gods knew when they would die and who would kill them. The Ragnarök would lead to the destruction of the world and the Gods. The Gods soldiered on bravely despite this knowledge like a Nietzschean uberman.
The Republicans seem to know they’ll be decimated. They even know who is going to take them down, but they soldier on without any ability to change. They head on to disaster not bravely but dejectedly suspecting they cannot stop fate.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Kavon, who is it that needs to get their act together? Are you referring to John McCain? the RNC? the NRSC? Plus, if the odds are 40/60 against losing all the competitive ones, what are the odds of not only losing the competitive ones but losing a few other unexpected ones like Dole, the Hagel seat, and others? As to Kentucky, every other poll has McConnell ahead, and Lunsford doesn’t have great support at the top of the ticket.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Things will get better eventually in the Senate. Among four solidly Republican states of Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, you have 6 Democrats and only 2 Republicans. Once the likes of Conrad and Dorgan and Max Baucus retire, those will eventually be Republican. I’m sure people will jump on me for that too. I think part of the strategy is to make things look really bad for the GOP so that they will get more moderate. The last thing DaveG would want would be for Republicans to sweep the country. If they did that, they would drift further to the right, and South Park Republicans would become unaccepted.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I think you can move NJ to the safe Dem column. I recently read The American Conservative’s take on the race, and it would appear that both Republicans running in the primary (neither of which have much establishment backing) are well to the right of the state. The magazine characterized it as Duncan Hunter vs. Ron Paul. Neither of those guys are going to beat the ex-Senator in the state that has probably had the biggest blue shift in the last 20 years (next to California).
May 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
EGS,
Good analogy. Although as the old cliche goes, 6 months is an eternity in politics. But the Republican brand is so damaged right now, only a Democratic circular firing squad could save them at this point.
Also, since McCain will be running as a “different kind of Republicans” (probably has to) he will have almost no coattails down ticket.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
These people can also run as a different kind of Republican. Will it be a good year for Democrats? Yes. I just think 9 seats is very steep.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The point of this post is a realistic assessment of what we’re up against. It is well within the realm of possibility for Dems to get to 60. It isn’t a stretch for them to get to 63 if things go badly enough. I’m not here to cheerlead, I’m here to call the races as I see them.
We’re six months out. Any of the seats that are listed as less than Safe are in play. Things will move around in the next couple months, and there’s no reason to assume the movement won’t be negative for REpublicans. Then again, it could be positive.
7) I don’t include “tossups.” Most polls show Udall slightly ahead, and given his name recognition and moderate persona (though not voting habits), I’d have to give him the slight edge.
11) If I had to bet money, this is where I would bet. My only point is that there are enough seats in the “Leans R” and “Slight Leans R” categories to put it above 60. I wouldn’t place a moneyline bet on it, but I would probably jump all over someone offering me 10:1 odds.
16) There is one poll showing Lunsford up. Most other polling shows McConnell up, but hovering around 50%, and his approval ratings are not good.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
It’s just that if you list a seat as leans R, that probably means the Dems have about a 30-40% chance of taking it. For all of the ones in that category to break Democratic is a stretch of the imagination.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I’m going to predict a 6 seat gain. I would say NM, CO, NH, VA, AK, and MS. Even that is relatively generous to Democrats.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
31) .3 times .3 times .3 is .027, or about 3%, which isn’t a stretch of the imagination. Plus they aren’t independent variables — as the overall mood improves, the odds improve for all of them; as the mood declines, it declines for all of them. I’d say there’s about a 10% chance of Dems winning 3 of 5 in that category.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
One would think people like Charlie Cook would take the fact that the mood might change into consideration. I can’t imagine the mood being any worse than it is now though.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Sean,
What kind of coattails do you think Obama will have? Do you think he will hurt Democrats down ticket in states like KY, WV, and PA?
And can anyone explain Obama’s relative weakness in Florida, a state that has been rather purple the last 3-4 elections?
May 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
34) Cook and Rothenberg are very, very cautious. And remember, no one thought it was within the realm of possibility for Dems to win the Senate at this point in 2006. Most thought a 53-47 to 51-49 Rep majority was the most likely outcome (remember Menendez losing to Kean?).
35) I dunno. Probably not in Senate races, though increased AA turnout could hurt in LA, MS, and NC. In the House, I think he could hurt in, say, PA-10, where Carney is going to have a tough race. KS-02 is another one. But it would counterbalance in some of the suburban districts (VA-11, IL-11, etc).
Lots of hispanics, lots of rural whites in the panhandle, doesn’t run well with jews.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
MWS:
Obama refused to campaign here until recently. He has repeatedly said that FL’s votes shouldn’t count. After the 2000 problem, many Floridians, particularly Democrats always yell about “every vote must be counted” and Obama pretty much saying “screw you Florida”. It hits a raw nerve down here. Plus the whole Crackers, Hispanics, Catholics, and Jews thing too.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Sean and Jonathan,
Thanks.
So Florida is one part KY, one part NY, and one part Southern CA. Couple that with Obama antaganizing FL Democrats’ martyr complex.
That makes sense now.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
MWS:
I would say FL is one part AL instead of KY and throw in 1 part IN and you got it about right.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Also, Cuban Americans have traditionally been Republicans anyway when compared to Mexican Americans
May 29th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
” no one thought it was within the realm of possibility for Dems to win the Senate at this point in 2006.”
…until Allen shot his foot off, it wasn’t.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I don’t think Dems will win “a 55-seat majority” – that would be 77-22 with one independent?
However, its likely that they will win a 10-seat majority, or 55 seats.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Interesting that you see Texas as so close, Sean. What’s going on there to make you so pessimistic about Kyl’s chances?
Also, wrt Cook I’ll note that Cook is estimating that Democrats will gain 10-20 seats in the House, but if you look at his specific ratings there’s only one Republican seat (Weller’s) that he’s presently giving Democrats an advantage in. That means he’s seeing some sort of wave – or at least a cascade effect – towards Democrats among the seats he presently rates as Toss-Ups and Leans Republican. Given that, it’s very reasonable to think that he sees similar effects happening on the Senate side.
Fwiw, at this point I’m seeing a lor of parallels between the 1976 election and this one. Then, you had Republicans coming off of a terrible midterm thumping and really trying to redefine what the party really stood for and what only certain elements sttod for, and instead of having a rebound they suffered another thumping in congressional elections. That’s not to say that the results this year will be the same, but today’s Republicans are basically having to answer the same questions that their fathers did 32 years ago.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Dang. I mean Cornyn’s chances.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
In Norse religion the Gods knew when they would die and who would kill them. The Ragnarök would lead to the destruction of the world and the Gods. The Gods soldiered on bravely despite this knowledge like a Nietzschean uberman.
The Republicans seem to know they’ll be decimated. They even know who is going to take them down, but they soldier on without any ability to change. They head on to disaster not bravely but dejectedly suspecting they cannot stop fate.
Doug, that’s possibly the best analogy I’ve ever seen to describe the current state of the Republican Party.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
43) If its 1976, iirc, that’s not so bad. Didn’t the GOP end up breaking even in the House and Senate?
At any rate, I’m a little less worried about the House than the Senate. I’m not sure why Cook has, for example, Shea-Porter as a “Leans Democrat” when there have been a couple of polls out showing her down against either Republcian. I think there are enough highly-vulnerable and accidental Democrats, as well as Dems in rural, white, conservative districts that won’t be able to withstand the anti-Obama wave in those districts, that the House losses should be fairly modest (I think more around 10 than 20). But who really knows at this point.
Re Cornyn, this:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/texas/election_2008_texas_senate
and the last word on Cornyn’s approval wasn’t encouraging:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=59e13048-8ca9-4fc8-9302-dc8681fe64b0
May 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Indy Voter,
The latest TX-Sen poll by Research 2000 only had Cornyn up 4 over Noriega 48-44. For an incumbent to be below 50 at this time during the election season is a really worrisome sign.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
You’re right about 1976, Sean. Democrats only gained one House seat and the Senate (which I wasn’t really thinking about) was unchanged. For some reason I though Democrats had picked up an additional dozen or so House seats that year. My bad.