A filibuster-proof Democratic Senate is beginning to look like a reality. Red-staters are apparently ready to join the rest of the nation in vomiting Republicans out this November. And that means even more vulnerable GOP Senate seats on the horizon.
As an avid follower of the biannual race for the Senate, I’ve noticed a few general rules that bode ill for the GOP this time around. First, one of the surest ways to predict months in advance whether an incumbent senator will win or lose an election is to simply determine whether the incumbent is able to garner majority support in most polls. Those who do generally hold their seats. Those who don’t, well, don’t. Secondly, in almost every election cycle, the bulk of contested Senate races generally breaks one way or the other on Election Day. That is to say, if there are six Senate races that could go either way come November, it’s much more likely for five of them to break for the same party than it is for each party to win three.
When these rules are applied to the current Senate landscape, fully 10 current GOP Senate seats are found to be up for grabs, while the same cannot be said for a single Democratic seat. According to the RCP polling archive, of the GOP senators facing reelection this year, seven have either trailed their opponent or fallen below 50% in at least one recent poll. Those endangered incumbents include Liddy Dole of NC, John Sununu of NH, Ted Stevens of AK, Mitch McConnell of KY, John Cornyn of TX, Norm Coleman of MN, and Roger Wicker of MS. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate leads the GOP candidate in three additional open seats according to at least one recent poll: CO, NM, and VA. Were the Democrats to sweep all of these seats, and were Sen. Lieberman to continue to caucus with the Democrats, fully 61 senators would be voting for Majority Leader Hillary Clinton in 2009, her likely consolation prize for her efforts this year.
Now, things could change between now and November, but if 10 GOP Senate seats are still up for grabs after Labor Day, and if Mary Landrieu still seems poised to coast to victory, I would be very surprised if Democrats ended up with fewer than seven additional seats in the Senate. That’s a 58-seat Democratic Senate, probably with a corresponding majority in the House. If those sorts of Democratic supermajorities don’t convince conservatives to vote for John McCain in the fall, I just don’t know what will.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
DaveG -
Just exactly what do you see John McCain accomplishing or even preventing if faced with the picture you describe?
Based on his positions and past actions, I can’t see a thing.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Great reminder.
One thing: Senate Dem leaders scoff at the idea Hillary will be Majority Leader.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Irish Right: Commander in Chief duties!
May 28th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
MetroRepublican -
While even I will concede that McCain is more fit to wear that mantle than either of his other two Democratic challengers, given DaveG’s scenario and McCains history of appeasement, short of actually having to push “the button”, do you really see McCain as being able to do anything along military lines that the Democratic majority doesn’t approve of? I don’t.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
By most accounts, there are 7 truly endangered Republican seats. I don’t think Dole, McConnell or Cornyn is even close to danger. That leaves Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virginia.
The RSCC would do best if they just dropped Virginia and New Hampshire- Warner and Shaheen are poised to coast there.
Colorado and New Mexico are certainly winnable, especially if McCain can provide a coattails effect. But it’s going to take a lot of effort and resources, and I’m not even sure that will do the trick. So there’s four off the top for the Dems.
Franken has so far proved to be exactly what Minnesota Republicans wanted him to be- an empty shirt. His campaign is trying ever so hard to go down in absolute flames. Coleman’s poised to win this one, but one Stuart Smalley bit and Franken could be right back in it.
I think Alaska and Mississippi will come around. The only MS polling is internals from the DSCC, and I think that’s pretty wrong. If I had to lose a Senate Republican, I’d vote Ted Stevens, so I won’t be too hurt if he’s gone. And an Alaska Democrat has to be pretty moderate or he won’t last too long. My guess is Stevens will be back and so will Wicker, but it could go either way. Senate polling is a lot less accurate than normal polling.
I think worst case we drop 6 seats, best case we drop 4. It’s still manageable, and a McCain president has a little more respect from his Senate colleagues. We’ll see.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Obama and 60 Democrat senators give us another Ginsberg.
McCain and 60 Democrats give us at least another Kennedy.
Obama and 60 Democrats give us Kyoto.
With McCain, it’s cap ‘n trade.
Obama rescinds all the tax cuts.
McCain convinces Dems to keep those that impact the middle class and below.
Obama pulls out of Iraq now.
McCain doesn’t.
There are very real differences. McCain and a Democratic Congress give conservatives maybe a third of a loaf. But that’s more than what conservatives would get with Obama and a Democratic Congress. Given that those are the only two options right now, it makes very little sense for conservatives to do anything other than vote for McCain.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The President has the power to do a whole lot on that realm without Congressional approval.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:04 am
DaveG,
McCain fought for Kyoto the first time around, what makes you think he won’t fight against a similar treaty when it comes up again? And Kyoto or cap and trade? Even if McCain magically somehow fights against Kyoto and manages only cap and trade garbage, in the end it’s six of one, half dozen of the other anyway.
And he fought against the Bush tax cuts up until he was running in the primaries, even calling them morally wrong and that he couldn’t vote for them as a matter of conscience. And he’s going to stand up to a supermajority of Dems who want to let them expire, expending what precious little political capital he’ll have fighting for something he doesn’t even believe in or understand?
Finally, McCain said under his watch troops will be out of Iraq in four years; under Obama they’ll be out in two years… again, not a big difference.
On immigration, there’s no difference. On Guantanamo Bay, no difference. On torture, no difference.
So if this election truly comes down to having a Ginsberg or a Kennedy replace a Ginsberg, pardon me if that doesn’t get me excited enough to go out and vote McCain.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:05 am
what makes you think he *will* fight against…
May 29th, 2008 at 12:30 am
I’m glad Matt C. is apparently in the mood to debate torture with John McCain.
McCain said troops would win in four years, he also said they’d be there for a hundred, in case you forgot that.
Kyoto and Cap-and-Trade are very, very different. Hell, John Kerry Cap-and-Trade and John McCain Cap-and-Trade are different. But that’s not enough for you. “A REAL CONSERVATIVE DOESN’T BELIEVE THIS GLOBAL WARMING CRAP!”
I don’t understand. I think you’re just looking for a reason to be mad. The differences between McCain and Obama are unbelievable. You’re just looking for the “whole loaf” as DaveG put it, but you don’t realize that if you don’t take the “1/3rd of a loaf” deal you’ve been offered, then the whole loaf will be stolen from you with no guarantee of return. Obama’s a powerful politician with an amazing network of support- imagine what he can do with a pulpit.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Kyoto is on its way out anyway. The treaty expires late in the next president’s term. A replacement treaty which I believe may end up being called the Copenhagen Treaty is due to replace it. The next administration (whomever) will end up playing a role in crafting it. And unlike Kyoto it could well apply to all signatories, eliminating the “China” exemption that makes this one so unpalatable today. And of course it will include a cap and trade component.
So if McCain stays true to campaign promises, signing on with a global treaty is not out of the realm of possibilities. It probably would have easier implementation guidelines and perhaps fewer regs, but would no doubt be a real deal. Moreover he may stand a better chance at getting it ratified in the US Senate by bringing some Republican votes to add to the Democrat votes and reach the 2/3rds. With an Obama president, this outcome is actually less likely as the republican senators would probably be less inclined to cross the isle. This is how the Governator operates out here…
In fact the Schwarzenegger model of governance is probably route that McCain would have the most executive success with. I am not saying McCain would do this (nor as a 2000 McCain voter and 2006 Arnold voter) would I even trust him to do so, but if McCain ran his presidency as Schwarzenegger does it certainly would be quite productive.
Of course this outcome would probably concern the conservative part of the Republican Party to no end for which I have no easy answer for.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:09 am
[...] colleague Dave from Race 4 2008 explains: As an avid follower of the biannual race for the Senate, I’ve noticed a few general rules that [...]
May 29th, 2008 at 6:33 am
People always site Ginsburg as the horror of an Obama presidency, but people forget that every single “liberal” on the Supreme Court currently, is reasonably moderate within historical context and as compared to many Democratic circuit judges. A 60 seat Obama majority won’t give us another Ginsburg. It’ll give us another Brennan or even a William O. Douglass. It’ll give us Harold Koh, who’s far more liberal then anyone on the court currently. I agree; there’s no more compelling reason to vote for McCain then the possibility of a 60 seat Democratic majority. At least McCain might be able to get someone like Maureen Mahoney through in that sort of senate. Obama could get absolutely anyone through. Democrats don’t vote against Democratic nominees.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:58 am
McConnell’s real problem is that he hails from a state where 50% of voters are Democrats – and this year the GOP is in the dumps. Obama is not going to sell with KY Democrats but Mitch’s opponent might – especially this year.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:00 am
#13
This is one of the best points I’ve seen anyone make here in a long time. If Obama were president, I’d breathe a sigh of RELIEF if he nominated someone with the judicial philosophy of Ginsburg. The liberals on our current Court are NOT that liberal in a historical context. I can handle Ginsburg and Souter and Breyer – I don’t usually agree with them, but they’re reasonable, responsible judges. With the Democratic Senate he’d have, Obama would nominate someone who is irresonsibly and unreasonably liberal – for life. This election matters.