Early Thoughts on 2010 Senate Races
Usual caveats. It's still early and much can change in the next six months, but here's how I see this fall's Senate races playing out with the current state of affairs....
Alabama--Not sure who Richard Shelby's Democratic challenger is likely to be. Doesn't matter anyway. Shelby will win in the biggest landslide of his career.
Alaska--It truly was a remarkable political recovery for Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who looked as though she was toast in the 2004 race against popular former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles. She prevailed on election night, however, as Republicans almost always seem to in Alaska. This year, I haven't heard a name cited for a possible challenger. Whatever anger there was about her being appointed by her father seems to be long gone.
Arizona--At first I thought J.D. Hayworth was poised to upset McCain in the Republican primary, but his strength seems to be waning as McCain tacks further and further right. I would have temporarily enjoyed the headline if Hayworth had defeated the GOP's Presidential nominee of just two years prior, but it wouldn't have mattered in the end as Hayworth would have been elected Senator in November. Then again, there really isn't much difference between Hayworth and McCain's politics at this point anyway.
Arkansas--Blanche Lincoln has always been worthless, but at this point I would rate her as the most worthless Democrat in Congress. At least Ben Nelson is from a genuine red state and serves a hypothetical mathematical purpose for his party. There's nothing I'd love to see more than Bill Halter topple Lincoln later this month in the Democratic primary, but it seems like a longshot. I have no illusions that Halter would be the second coming of Paul Wellstone, or that he could even win a statewide election in Arkansas this year, but he would be likely be better at either than Lincoln. At least with Halter, there's no legislative trail of unpopular votes and blatant, opportunistic bet-hedging as there is with Lincoln. I suspect Boozman will be the GOP nominee but it doesn't matter this year. Barring an epic Republican scandal, any Republican would beat Lincoln. The odds are nominally better with Halter, but still very unlikely. GOP +1
California--I've already given my position on the California Senate race in the previous entry. It's such a target-rich environment for NRSC headhunters that I doubt they'll be able to pour the kind of financial resources into this race to compete toe-to-toe with Boxer. If they could, I think Boxer could be beaten this year. I have no idea how compelling either Tom Campbell or Carly Fiorina's campaign will end up being, and it would have to quite compelling if they were gonna topple a street fighter like Boxer, but Boxer's biggest liability is likely to be a lethargic Democratic base. Perhaps the latest kerfuffle over the Arizona immigration law will stoke Latino passions and compel them to the voting booth, an event that would certainly help Boxer's cause, but right now I'm looking for a very weak two-or-three-point victory for Boxer with a voter turnout comparable to the anemic 2002 Gray Davis gubernatorial election year.
Colorado--I've been very impressed with interim Democratic Senator Michael Bennet, who has been putting principles over politics on a variety of different issues and positioning himself as considerably more progressive than predecessor Ken Salazar. Unfortunately, that's one of a number of reasons he's not likely to be re-elected. I'm hoping Bennet wins the primary against the more DLC-leaning Andrew Romanoff, largely because I don't think either one has a chance against either Republican. After three election cycles of centrist Colorado moving heavily towards Democrats, a course correction seems inevitable. Democrats have been winning recent Colorado elections by winning over affluent Denver suburbs that are historically Republican but had issues with the Bush administration. With the bogeyman out of the picture, these decidedly nonliberal voters will be coming home to the GOP. GOP +2
Connecticut--I'm not entirely convinced this race isn't still in play. Tell me if you've heard this one before. A popular Democratic Attorney General in a New England state faces off in a Senate campaign against a likeable moderate Republican, coming out of the starting gate with a huge lead in the polls. Now there's no way of knowing that Blumenthal will turn out to be another Martha Coakley, but there's also no way of knowing that he isn't. It would be great if the GOP is dumb enough to nominate WWE mogul Linda McMahon as their party's emissary, but the likely bet is they'll go with Rob Simmons, who could prove to be just what the doctor ordered for moderate New England voters "fed up with the status quo". Given his commanding lead in the polls, you still have to give the edge to Blumenthal, but this is definitely a race to watch.
Delaware--I think Beau Biden could see the writing on the walls and backed away from this race knowing his chances were not great against Republican Mike Castle. Certainly Castle's victory is odds-on, but he's no spring chicken and, like Connecticut, I wouldn't rule out an upset if Democrat Chris Coons runs a competent campaign. This is another race to watch, but certainly likely Republican. GOP +3
Florida--Right now, Florida's Senate race looks to be the most exciting in the country, with a plausible path to victory for all three of the candidates. It would be in the Democrats' interest to put a stop to insurgent right-wing hero Marco Rubio by whatever means necessary given the dangerous implications if he's given a megaphone for the national GOP, so my hope is that if Democrats see that our likely nominee Kendrick Meek is struggling, enough hold their nose and vote for Charlie Crist. Unfortunately, I still think Rubio has the best hand of three candidates, unless of course this financing scandal blows up on him. It's gonna be a Republican year and Florida is still a Republican-leaning state full of geriatrics not looking to reward Obama with anybody perceived as a likely ally. Beyond that, Rubio could consolidate the Democratic-leaning Latino vote in central Florida responsible for putting Obama over the top in the state. If Rubio gets that key vote along with the party's northern FL base, it's hard to see how Crist and Meek can individually overcome him.
Georgia--Does Johnny Isaakson even have an opponent in the wings? Gotta figure it'll be a fourth-tier opponent if there is one, capable of winning only in Georgia counties with populations that are 60% black or more.
Hawaii--I'm assuming at this point that octagenarian Daniel Inouye is running for yet another term, and without Republican Governor Linda Lingle on the ballot, this is likely to be an extremely rare political phenomenon in the year 2010....a safe Democratic Senate seat.
Illinois--Republicans got a perfect storm in this race, comfortably nominating their electable suburban moderate (or at least perceived moderate) candidate while Democrats narrowly nominated a deeply flawed millionaire candidate whose family runs a bank that failed a few weeks after he was nominated. You have to give Kirk the edge in this race, but I'm not certain his current lead in the polls will hold up or that Giannoulias is definitely ruined. The arithmatic for a statewide Republican victory in Illinois has become almost impossible in the past decade--in my opinion at least as hard as Massachusetts--and one mistake is likely to be too many for Kirk. It may not even require a mistake if the Dems can point out that Kirk's voting record is nowhere near as moderate as he'd like us to think it is. Still, if the election were held today Kirk would win, but of all our at-risk seats, this is the one I'm the most optimistic about being salvaged. GOP +4
Indiana--Evan Bayh really screwed his party over by retiring a few days before the filing deadline. I'm reasonably confident Bayh could have prevailed in the general election, particularly against Coats who's bringing plenty of warts to his Senate comeback run. But Indiana's poised for a very Republican year and Coats is likely to prevail. Conservative Democrat Brad Ellsworth would have been a great statewide candidate in 2006 or 2008, but will need a number of things to dramatically go his way if he's gonna pull this one out. His one advantage is having a geographic foothold in a conservative-leaning region of the state, so if things do become competitive, Ellsworth wouldn't even need the 2008 Obama coalition to come together to eke out a victory. Still, the safe bet's on Coats by double digits. GOP +5
Iowa--The good news: Charles Grassley will have his weakest showing in decades in his bid for a sixth term in the Senate. The bad news: Charles Grassley will still likely win by double digits over Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin. For about a year now, there's been some anecdotal evidence that Iowans' long-standing adoration with Chuck Grassley might be waning, but his campaign warchest is such that if the race becomes even faintly competitive, he'll flood the airwaves with his homespun colloquialisms and win back a good share of those currently waffling. I see very little chance of him losing.
Kansas--I have no idea who any of the candidates are who are running for Sam Brownback's open seat, but even under ideal electoral circumstances it's a virtual given that the Republican will prevail in a Kansas Senate election. Given how terrible this year's political climate is, the GOP candidate's victory seems even more assured.
Kentucky--It's a shame this contest didn't come up in either 2006 or 2008. Both of the Democratic candidates, Attorney General Jack Conway and Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo, are more than capable of winning a Senate election in Kentucky under traditional electoral circumstances. Unfortunately, in a state brimming with a disproportionate level of Obama Derangement Syndrome, along with a festering national debate on coal mining, it's hard to imagine any situation where either Conway or Mongiardo could win in 2010. On the Republican side, I'm pulling for Secretary of State Trey Grayson who would be a conventional Republican backbencher incapable of doing the Democratic narrative any harm. A victory by libertarian Republican Rand Paul would theoretically yield at least a few correct votes on the Senate floor, particularly on foreign policy issues, but it would catapult a mostly radical, fringe ideologue to the front and center of Republican politics. At one level, it's difficult to see how government-dependent Kentuckians could come out ahead in any way latching onto libertarianism, but the rhetoric is nonetheless likely to sound good to them and one Senator is unlikely to give voters a true sense of what libertarianism politics in actual practice is really like. Regrettably, Paul has a comfortable lead in the primary polls and I'd give significant odds to his being the next Senator of Kentucky.
Louisiana--Another contest that I would have loved to have seen come up in 2006 or 2008. Charlie Melancon is the perfect profile of a successful Southern Democrat in the early 21st century and under normal circumstances would pose a serious challenge to an assclown like GOP incumbent David Vitter. Unfortunately, he picked a terrible year to go for a promotion in a state as rabidly anti-Obama as Louisiana. Now that Melancon's district is about to be economically devastated once again after the big oil spill, even his base voters are gonna be in a sour mood and that's only likely to further help Vitter. Crazy how a race that would have been odds-on for Melancon two years ago is now likely to be a 20-point flogging for a "family values" Republican who visits prostitutes while wearing diapers.
Maryland--Democrat Barbara Mikulski appears to be running for another term and should make this another rare comfortably Democratic seat. Even in an open seat, the demographics of Maryland in 2010 make it virtually impossible to see how a Republican could win.
Missouri--A cycle that should have been a target-rich bonanza for Democrats turned into a nightmare. Exhibit A is Missouri, where it would have been inconceivable in any recent election to envision much-maligned Washington insider Roy Blunt defeating Robin Carnahan. But in 2010, that now seems like an inevitable outcome as increasingly conservative Missouri hardens in opposition to Obama and seems poised to latch onto whatever candidate has an (R) next to his or her name come fall. This race is not so far gone that there's no hope for Carnahan, but it's definitely an uphill fight to win a race that seemed like a slam-dunk 12 months ago.
Nevada--If Republicans are smart, they will run away from gaffe-prone frontrunner Sue Lowden in favor of primary opponent Danny Tarkanian now while they still have the chance. If Lowden's political instincts continue to be as rotten in the general election as they have so far, she could manage to do the seemingly impossible...lose to Harry Reid. Of course, since Tarkanian is by no means a veteran of political campaigns either, so he could end up being just as gaffe-prone as Lowden. Hapless opposition may give Harry Reid a glimmer of hope that he could hang onto his seat by default but it still seems like a longshot. Voters know they don't like him....and they have to be convinced that his opponent is even less likable. That's no easy task for Reid. GOP +6
New Hampshire--Much like Colorado, the apparent wholesale realignment of New Hampshire to the Democrats in the last three election cycles seemed too good to be true....and was. The same libertarian instincts prominent among New Hampshire voters that worked to Democrats' advantage during the Bush years are now poised to crush the Democrats during the Obama years. Republican Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is the likely GOP nominee and all polls indicate she has a commanding lead over Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes, another House member that picked a bad year to go for a promotion and could likely forfeit his Democrat-held House seat as well as lose the Senate election. Barring a huge change in the campaign's existing dynamic, Ayotte seems poised for an easy victory.
New York 1--Chuck Schumer is actually a ripe target for a number of reasons, but is benefiting mightily from the fact that lower-hanging fruit Kirsten Gillibrand makes for an easier Republican target. Even a challenge from Pataki or Giuliani would have a tough time taking down Schumer given the Democratic bent of New York as well as Schumer's ferocious ambition, but without any big-name challenger poised to take him on, Schumer should score an easy victory.
New York 2--Kirsten Gillibrand should be toast in a political environment as tough as 2010, but has lucked out by the conspicuous lack of GOP opposition which still baffles me. Why isn't Giuliani running? And why not Pataki? How was John Cornyn incapable of convincing these guys to take on the easily beatable Gillibrand with a likely consequence of a GOP-controlled Senate? It's quite a mystery, and one the Democrats must be hitting their knees in appreciation for every day. As weak as Gillibrand is, I still wouldn't rule out a Scott Brown-style GOP newcomer taking her down, but right now you definitely have to give her odds of holding the seat.
North Carolina--Republican backbencher Richard Burr looked to be toast at this time a year ago, with an insurgent Democratic Party in North Carolina and little goodwill built up for Burr even amongst his party's base. While I still think North Carolina is in the midst of a more permanent Democratic realignment than Colorado or Indiana, 2010 nonetheless looks like a rough year. Both Elaine Marshall and Cal Cunningham seem like credible candidates and would have likely beaten Burr in either 2006 or 2008, but whoever prevails in the primary runoff is gonna have a huge uphill fight in November. As weak as Burr might be and as strong as either Marshall or Cunningham may end up being, it's hard to envision a scenario where this race isn't nationalized to Burr's benefit.
North Dakota--I knew in November 2008 that backlash to a Democratic-controlled Washington would jeopardize my favorite Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan and his re-election became my top concern. Never did it cross my mind that Dorgan would retire and my heart sank when I heard he was gonna do just that. It's almost certain that popular Republican Governor John Hoeven will now win the seat, but the upside is that there's a reason for Hoeven's broad popularity at home. He's a pragmatic moderate who reaches out to the other side. Considering the kind of wingnut that North Dakota would be capable of promoting to the Senate in an electoral climate such as this, a victory by Hoeven is about as good of an outcome as we can hope for. GOP +7
Ohio--On the surface, Ohio seems like the Democrats' best chance of winning a Republican-held seat this year. Unfortunately, I have less hope of that happening now than I did a week ago. Newly minted Democratic nominee Lee Fisher shows little sign of being a scrappy street fighter or of being an aggressive populist capable of turning the heat on his opponent, Bush's former budget director Rob Portman. I have no idea how good of a candidate Jennifer Brunner would have been, but she was ideologically closer to Sherrod Brown, the kind of Democrat with a track record of winning in Ohio. Maybe Fisher will surprise me, and goodness knows Portman is about the best opponent any Democrat could ask for this year, especially in a state as devastated by the Bush economy as Ohio, but given the national climate and Ohio's
bellwether reputation, Portman nonetheless has the advantage.
Oklahoma--I'm against Tom Coburn on most issues and he certainly shows flashes of being a despicable human being, but even I have to acknowledge that he serves a vital role in the Senate as a gadfly to reckless spending. And if even I'm willing to acknowledge that he's more useful than most Republicans in the Senate, you know he's a shoo-in for a second term in the nation's most conservative state.
Oregon--I've only seen one poll but thus far it looks like Ron Wyden should weather the red tidal wave crashing onto America's shore this year. His numbers were soft enough to still be of some concern, but it's hard to see how the NRSC will have the money to bankroll a serious challenge to Wyden in Oregon given how many other states they have to target. His victory isn't quite a certainty, but he's better off than just about every other Democrat this year.
Pennsylvania--This race is becoming very unpredictable. At the very time that Arlen Specter was expected to be running away with a primary victory against Joe Sestak, it is Sestak that is closing the gap. My money is still on Specter. The man is a master at defining his opponents and ripping them apart. And for the same reason, my money is on Specter in November. Pat Toomey is way too conservative for Pennsylvania, and seems unlikely to have the political skills to win statewide against Specter. If it's Toomey vs. Sestak, then I would rate the race as a toss-up with a narrow advantage to Toomey. Sestak has a geographic advantage representing the Philadelphia suburbs in the House, the region where PA elections are won or lost in recent cycles. Still, my best bet is that Specter wins the primary and then wins the general.
South Carolina--While I have a certain respect for Oklahoma right-winger Tom Coburn, I have no respect at all for the equally right-wing Jim DeMint, who's much more of a demagogue and seems to be positioning himself for a higher profile in his second term by attaching himself to the furthest reaches of Tea Party wingnuttia.
Nonetheless, he's a Republican Senator in the state of South Carolina. He'll be re-elected by a double-digit margin.
South Dakota--In a more hospitable political climate, and before he made a total ass of himself by fudging on his taxes, I would have loved to have seen a rematch to the epic 2004 Senate race pitting Tom Daschle versus the man who narrowly defeated him in 2004, John Thune. Even in 2008, Thune would have probably won such a rematch, but it still would have been fun. Thune has no Democratic opposition in his bid for a second term which is just as well since he's unbeatable anyway. I'm just happy Stephanie Herseth Sandlin didn't challenge Thune for a promotion of her own the way Charlie Melancon is doing in Louisiana. Herseth will be lucky if she can pull off a victory in her House race this year.
Utah--Whether Republican Robert Bennett prevails in tomorrow's interparty skirmish or not, the ultimate victor in November's Senate election in the state of Utah will assuredly have an (R) next to his/her name.
Vermont--Pat Leahy is another of the selective class of Democratic Senate incumbents cruising towards safe re-election.
Washington--Biggest prediction of the bunch: Dino Rossi will decide to run for Senate and he will defeat three-term Democratic incumbent Patty Murray in November. GOP +8
Wisconsin--Tommy Thompson's decision to sit this race out cost the Republicans a Senate seat and conceivably a Senate majority. Without Thompson, I'm leaning towards Russ Feingold pulling it out, but if the GOP's challenger proves the least bit articulate, Feingold could be defeated in the current political climate.
So I have the GOP winning eight seats, which would leave us with a 51-49 Senate. Of course, you can never trust that the party's weakest link, Joe Lieberman, would stay with the Democrats in such a scenario. Furthermore, current polling indicates Pennsylvania is poised to move to the GOP despite my long-range prediction otherwise, and the slightest additional wind at the backs of the GOP would win them additional seats in California and Wisconsin....or an upset in Connecticut for that matter. Basically, the Republicans have a little less than 50% chance of winning back the Senate in the current political climate, despite the fact that virtually nobody is acknowledging how good their chances are right now. An even more alarming scenario for Democrats may come in 2012, where the Democrats will be defending 24 of 33 total seats, and almost certainly poised to lose control of the Senate if they haven't already after the 2010 midterms. If the GOP has a really strong 2012, which isn't nearly as likely as it was in 2010, it's not inconceivable that in two election cycles, the U.S. Senate could swing from a filibuster-proof Democratic majority to a filibuster-proof Republican majority. To be continued....
Alabama--Not sure who Richard Shelby's Democratic challenger is likely to be. Doesn't matter anyway. Shelby will win in the biggest landslide of his career.
Alaska--It truly was a remarkable political recovery for Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who looked as though she was toast in the 2004 race against popular former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles. She prevailed on election night, however, as Republicans almost always seem to in Alaska. This year, I haven't heard a name cited for a possible challenger. Whatever anger there was about her being appointed by her father seems to be long gone.
Arizona--At first I thought J.D. Hayworth was poised to upset McCain in the Republican primary, but his strength seems to be waning as McCain tacks further and further right. I would have temporarily enjoyed the headline if Hayworth had defeated the GOP's Presidential nominee of just two years prior, but it wouldn't have mattered in the end as Hayworth would have been elected Senator in November. Then again, there really isn't much difference between Hayworth and McCain's politics at this point anyway.
Arkansas--Blanche Lincoln has always been worthless, but at this point I would rate her as the most worthless Democrat in Congress. At least Ben Nelson is from a genuine red state and serves a hypothetical mathematical purpose for his party. There's nothing I'd love to see more than Bill Halter topple Lincoln later this month in the Democratic primary, but it seems like a longshot. I have no illusions that Halter would be the second coming of Paul Wellstone, or that he could even win a statewide election in Arkansas this year, but he would be likely be better at either than Lincoln. At least with Halter, there's no legislative trail of unpopular votes and blatant, opportunistic bet-hedging as there is with Lincoln. I suspect Boozman will be the GOP nominee but it doesn't matter this year. Barring an epic Republican scandal, any Republican would beat Lincoln. The odds are nominally better with Halter, but still very unlikely. GOP +1
California--I've already given my position on the California Senate race in the previous entry. It's such a target-rich environment for NRSC headhunters that I doubt they'll be able to pour the kind of financial resources into this race to compete toe-to-toe with Boxer. If they could, I think Boxer could be beaten this year. I have no idea how compelling either Tom Campbell or Carly Fiorina's campaign will end up being, and it would have to quite compelling if they were gonna topple a street fighter like Boxer, but Boxer's biggest liability is likely to be a lethargic Democratic base. Perhaps the latest kerfuffle over the Arizona immigration law will stoke Latino passions and compel them to the voting booth, an event that would certainly help Boxer's cause, but right now I'm looking for a very weak two-or-three-point victory for Boxer with a voter turnout comparable to the anemic 2002 Gray Davis gubernatorial election year.
Colorado--I've been very impressed with interim Democratic Senator Michael Bennet, who has been putting principles over politics on a variety of different issues and positioning himself as considerably more progressive than predecessor Ken Salazar. Unfortunately, that's one of a number of reasons he's not likely to be re-elected. I'm hoping Bennet wins the primary against the more DLC-leaning Andrew Romanoff, largely because I don't think either one has a chance against either Republican. After three election cycles of centrist Colorado moving heavily towards Democrats, a course correction seems inevitable. Democrats have been winning recent Colorado elections by winning over affluent Denver suburbs that are historically Republican but had issues with the Bush administration. With the bogeyman out of the picture, these decidedly nonliberal voters will be coming home to the GOP. GOP +2
Connecticut--I'm not entirely convinced this race isn't still in play. Tell me if you've heard this one before. A popular Democratic Attorney General in a New England state faces off in a Senate campaign against a likeable moderate Republican, coming out of the starting gate with a huge lead in the polls. Now there's no way of knowing that Blumenthal will turn out to be another Martha Coakley, but there's also no way of knowing that he isn't. It would be great if the GOP is dumb enough to nominate WWE mogul Linda McMahon as their party's emissary, but the likely bet is they'll go with Rob Simmons, who could prove to be just what the doctor ordered for moderate New England voters "fed up with the status quo". Given his commanding lead in the polls, you still have to give the edge to Blumenthal, but this is definitely a race to watch.
Delaware--I think Beau Biden could see the writing on the walls and backed away from this race knowing his chances were not great against Republican Mike Castle. Certainly Castle's victory is odds-on, but he's no spring chicken and, like Connecticut, I wouldn't rule out an upset if Democrat Chris Coons runs a competent campaign. This is another race to watch, but certainly likely Republican. GOP +3
Florida--Right now, Florida's Senate race looks to be the most exciting in the country, with a plausible path to victory for all three of the candidates. It would be in the Democrats' interest to put a stop to insurgent right-wing hero Marco Rubio by whatever means necessary given the dangerous implications if he's given a megaphone for the national GOP, so my hope is that if Democrats see that our likely nominee Kendrick Meek is struggling, enough hold their nose and vote for Charlie Crist. Unfortunately, I still think Rubio has the best hand of three candidates, unless of course this financing scandal blows up on him. It's gonna be a Republican year and Florida is still a Republican-leaning state full of geriatrics not looking to reward Obama with anybody perceived as a likely ally. Beyond that, Rubio could consolidate the Democratic-leaning Latino vote in central Florida responsible for putting Obama over the top in the state. If Rubio gets that key vote along with the party's northern FL base, it's hard to see how Crist and Meek can individually overcome him.
Georgia--Does Johnny Isaakson even have an opponent in the wings? Gotta figure it'll be a fourth-tier opponent if there is one, capable of winning only in Georgia counties with populations that are 60% black or more.
Hawaii--I'm assuming at this point that octagenarian Daniel Inouye is running for yet another term, and without Republican Governor Linda Lingle on the ballot, this is likely to be an extremely rare political phenomenon in the year 2010....a safe Democratic Senate seat.
Illinois--Republicans got a perfect storm in this race, comfortably nominating their electable suburban moderate (or at least perceived moderate) candidate while Democrats narrowly nominated a deeply flawed millionaire candidate whose family runs a bank that failed a few weeks after he was nominated. You have to give Kirk the edge in this race, but I'm not certain his current lead in the polls will hold up or that Giannoulias is definitely ruined. The arithmatic for a statewide Republican victory in Illinois has become almost impossible in the past decade--in my opinion at least as hard as Massachusetts--and one mistake is likely to be too many for Kirk. It may not even require a mistake if the Dems can point out that Kirk's voting record is nowhere near as moderate as he'd like us to think it is. Still, if the election were held today Kirk would win, but of all our at-risk seats, this is the one I'm the most optimistic about being salvaged. GOP +4
Indiana--Evan Bayh really screwed his party over by retiring a few days before the filing deadline. I'm reasonably confident Bayh could have prevailed in the general election, particularly against Coats who's bringing plenty of warts to his Senate comeback run. But Indiana's poised for a very Republican year and Coats is likely to prevail. Conservative Democrat Brad Ellsworth would have been a great statewide candidate in 2006 or 2008, but will need a number of things to dramatically go his way if he's gonna pull this one out. His one advantage is having a geographic foothold in a conservative-leaning region of the state, so if things do become competitive, Ellsworth wouldn't even need the 2008 Obama coalition to come together to eke out a victory. Still, the safe bet's on Coats by double digits. GOP +5
Iowa--The good news: Charles Grassley will have his weakest showing in decades in his bid for a sixth term in the Senate. The bad news: Charles Grassley will still likely win by double digits over Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin. For about a year now, there's been some anecdotal evidence that Iowans' long-standing adoration with Chuck Grassley might be waning, but his campaign warchest is such that if the race becomes even faintly competitive, he'll flood the airwaves with his homespun colloquialisms and win back a good share of those currently waffling. I see very little chance of him losing.
Kansas--I have no idea who any of the candidates are who are running for Sam Brownback's open seat, but even under ideal electoral circumstances it's a virtual given that the Republican will prevail in a Kansas Senate election. Given how terrible this year's political climate is, the GOP candidate's victory seems even more assured.
Kentucky--It's a shame this contest didn't come up in either 2006 or 2008. Both of the Democratic candidates, Attorney General Jack Conway and Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo, are more than capable of winning a Senate election in Kentucky under traditional electoral circumstances. Unfortunately, in a state brimming with a disproportionate level of Obama Derangement Syndrome, along with a festering national debate on coal mining, it's hard to imagine any situation where either Conway or Mongiardo could win in 2010. On the Republican side, I'm pulling for Secretary of State Trey Grayson who would be a conventional Republican backbencher incapable of doing the Democratic narrative any harm. A victory by libertarian Republican Rand Paul would theoretically yield at least a few correct votes on the Senate floor, particularly on foreign policy issues, but it would catapult a mostly radical, fringe ideologue to the front and center of Republican politics. At one level, it's difficult to see how government-dependent Kentuckians could come out ahead in any way latching onto libertarianism, but the rhetoric is nonetheless likely to sound good to them and one Senator is unlikely to give voters a true sense of what libertarianism politics in actual practice is really like. Regrettably, Paul has a comfortable lead in the primary polls and I'd give significant odds to his being the next Senator of Kentucky.
Louisiana--Another contest that I would have loved to have seen come up in 2006 or 2008. Charlie Melancon is the perfect profile of a successful Southern Democrat in the early 21st century and under normal circumstances would pose a serious challenge to an assclown like GOP incumbent David Vitter. Unfortunately, he picked a terrible year to go for a promotion in a state as rabidly anti-Obama as Louisiana. Now that Melancon's district is about to be economically devastated once again after the big oil spill, even his base voters are gonna be in a sour mood and that's only likely to further help Vitter. Crazy how a race that would have been odds-on for Melancon two years ago is now likely to be a 20-point flogging for a "family values" Republican who visits prostitutes while wearing diapers.
Maryland--Democrat Barbara Mikulski appears to be running for another term and should make this another rare comfortably Democratic seat. Even in an open seat, the demographics of Maryland in 2010 make it virtually impossible to see how a Republican could win.
Missouri--A cycle that should have been a target-rich bonanza for Democrats turned into a nightmare. Exhibit A is Missouri, where it would have been inconceivable in any recent election to envision much-maligned Washington insider Roy Blunt defeating Robin Carnahan. But in 2010, that now seems like an inevitable outcome as increasingly conservative Missouri hardens in opposition to Obama and seems poised to latch onto whatever candidate has an (R) next to his or her name come fall. This race is not so far gone that there's no hope for Carnahan, but it's definitely an uphill fight to win a race that seemed like a slam-dunk 12 months ago.
Nevada--If Republicans are smart, they will run away from gaffe-prone frontrunner Sue Lowden in favor of primary opponent Danny Tarkanian now while they still have the chance. If Lowden's political instincts continue to be as rotten in the general election as they have so far, she could manage to do the seemingly impossible...lose to Harry Reid. Of course, since Tarkanian is by no means a veteran of political campaigns either, so he could end up being just as gaffe-prone as Lowden. Hapless opposition may give Harry Reid a glimmer of hope that he could hang onto his seat by default but it still seems like a longshot. Voters know they don't like him....and they have to be convinced that his opponent is even less likable. That's no easy task for Reid. GOP +6
New Hampshire--Much like Colorado, the apparent wholesale realignment of New Hampshire to the Democrats in the last three election cycles seemed too good to be true....and was. The same libertarian instincts prominent among New Hampshire voters that worked to Democrats' advantage during the Bush years are now poised to crush the Democrats during the Obama years. Republican Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is the likely GOP nominee and all polls indicate she has a commanding lead over Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes, another House member that picked a bad year to go for a promotion and could likely forfeit his Democrat-held House seat as well as lose the Senate election. Barring a huge change in the campaign's existing dynamic, Ayotte seems poised for an easy victory.
New York 1--Chuck Schumer is actually a ripe target for a number of reasons, but is benefiting mightily from the fact that lower-hanging fruit Kirsten Gillibrand makes for an easier Republican target. Even a challenge from Pataki or Giuliani would have a tough time taking down Schumer given the Democratic bent of New York as well as Schumer's ferocious ambition, but without any big-name challenger poised to take him on, Schumer should score an easy victory.
New York 2--Kirsten Gillibrand should be toast in a political environment as tough as 2010, but has lucked out by the conspicuous lack of GOP opposition which still baffles me. Why isn't Giuliani running? And why not Pataki? How was John Cornyn incapable of convincing these guys to take on the easily beatable Gillibrand with a likely consequence of a GOP-controlled Senate? It's quite a mystery, and one the Democrats must be hitting their knees in appreciation for every day. As weak as Gillibrand is, I still wouldn't rule out a Scott Brown-style GOP newcomer taking her down, but right now you definitely have to give her odds of holding the seat.
North Carolina--Republican backbencher Richard Burr looked to be toast at this time a year ago, with an insurgent Democratic Party in North Carolina and little goodwill built up for Burr even amongst his party's base. While I still think North Carolina is in the midst of a more permanent Democratic realignment than Colorado or Indiana, 2010 nonetheless looks like a rough year. Both Elaine Marshall and Cal Cunningham seem like credible candidates and would have likely beaten Burr in either 2006 or 2008, but whoever prevails in the primary runoff is gonna have a huge uphill fight in November. As weak as Burr might be and as strong as either Marshall or Cunningham may end up being, it's hard to envision a scenario where this race isn't nationalized to Burr's benefit.
North Dakota--I knew in November 2008 that backlash to a Democratic-controlled Washington would jeopardize my favorite Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan and his re-election became my top concern. Never did it cross my mind that Dorgan would retire and my heart sank when I heard he was gonna do just that. It's almost certain that popular Republican Governor John Hoeven will now win the seat, but the upside is that there's a reason for Hoeven's broad popularity at home. He's a pragmatic moderate who reaches out to the other side. Considering the kind of wingnut that North Dakota would be capable of promoting to the Senate in an electoral climate such as this, a victory by Hoeven is about as good of an outcome as we can hope for. GOP +7
Ohio--On the surface, Ohio seems like the Democrats' best chance of winning a Republican-held seat this year. Unfortunately, I have less hope of that happening now than I did a week ago. Newly minted Democratic nominee Lee Fisher shows little sign of being a scrappy street fighter or of being an aggressive populist capable of turning the heat on his opponent, Bush's former budget director Rob Portman. I have no idea how good of a candidate Jennifer Brunner would have been, but she was ideologically closer to Sherrod Brown, the kind of Democrat with a track record of winning in Ohio. Maybe Fisher will surprise me, and goodness knows Portman is about the best opponent any Democrat could ask for this year, especially in a state as devastated by the Bush economy as Ohio, but given the national climate and Ohio's
bellwether reputation, Portman nonetheless has the advantage.
Oklahoma--I'm against Tom Coburn on most issues and he certainly shows flashes of being a despicable human being, but even I have to acknowledge that he serves a vital role in the Senate as a gadfly to reckless spending. And if even I'm willing to acknowledge that he's more useful than most Republicans in the Senate, you know he's a shoo-in for a second term in the nation's most conservative state.
Oregon--I've only seen one poll but thus far it looks like Ron Wyden should weather the red tidal wave crashing onto America's shore this year. His numbers were soft enough to still be of some concern, but it's hard to see how the NRSC will have the money to bankroll a serious challenge to Wyden in Oregon given how many other states they have to target. His victory isn't quite a certainty, but he's better off than just about every other Democrat this year.
Pennsylvania--This race is becoming very unpredictable. At the very time that Arlen Specter was expected to be running away with a primary victory against Joe Sestak, it is Sestak that is closing the gap. My money is still on Specter. The man is a master at defining his opponents and ripping them apart. And for the same reason, my money is on Specter in November. Pat Toomey is way too conservative for Pennsylvania, and seems unlikely to have the political skills to win statewide against Specter. If it's Toomey vs. Sestak, then I would rate the race as a toss-up with a narrow advantage to Toomey. Sestak has a geographic advantage representing the Philadelphia suburbs in the House, the region where PA elections are won or lost in recent cycles. Still, my best bet is that Specter wins the primary and then wins the general.
South Carolina--While I have a certain respect for Oklahoma right-winger Tom Coburn, I have no respect at all for the equally right-wing Jim DeMint, who's much more of a demagogue and seems to be positioning himself for a higher profile in his second term by attaching himself to the furthest reaches of Tea Party wingnuttia.
Nonetheless, he's a Republican Senator in the state of South Carolina. He'll be re-elected by a double-digit margin.
South Dakota--In a more hospitable political climate, and before he made a total ass of himself by fudging on his taxes, I would have loved to have seen a rematch to the epic 2004 Senate race pitting Tom Daschle versus the man who narrowly defeated him in 2004, John Thune. Even in 2008, Thune would have probably won such a rematch, but it still would have been fun. Thune has no Democratic opposition in his bid for a second term which is just as well since he's unbeatable anyway. I'm just happy Stephanie Herseth Sandlin didn't challenge Thune for a promotion of her own the way Charlie Melancon is doing in Louisiana. Herseth will be lucky if she can pull off a victory in her House race this year.
Utah--Whether Republican Robert Bennett prevails in tomorrow's interparty skirmish or not, the ultimate victor in November's Senate election in the state of Utah will assuredly have an (R) next to his/her name.
Vermont--Pat Leahy is another of the selective class of Democratic Senate incumbents cruising towards safe re-election.
Washington--Biggest prediction of the bunch: Dino Rossi will decide to run for Senate and he will defeat three-term Democratic incumbent Patty Murray in November. GOP +8
Wisconsin--Tommy Thompson's decision to sit this race out cost the Republicans a Senate seat and conceivably a Senate majority. Without Thompson, I'm leaning towards Russ Feingold pulling it out, but if the GOP's challenger proves the least bit articulate, Feingold could be defeated in the current political climate.
So I have the GOP winning eight seats, which would leave us with a 51-49 Senate. Of course, you can never trust that the party's weakest link, Joe Lieberman, would stay with the Democrats in such a scenario. Furthermore, current polling indicates Pennsylvania is poised to move to the GOP despite my long-range prediction otherwise, and the slightest additional wind at the backs of the GOP would win them additional seats in California and Wisconsin....or an upset in Connecticut for that matter. Basically, the Republicans have a little less than 50% chance of winning back the Senate in the current political climate, despite the fact that virtually nobody is acknowledging how good their chances are right now. An even more alarming scenario for Democrats may come in 2012, where the Democrats will be defending 24 of 33 total seats, and almost certainly poised to lose control of the Senate if they haven't already after the 2010 midterms. If the GOP has a really strong 2012, which isn't nearly as likely as it was in 2010, it's not inconceivable that in two election cycles, the U.S. Senate could swing from a filibuster-proof Democratic majority to a filibuster-proof Republican majority. To be continued....
posted by Mark at 4:24 PM
20 Comments:
You have Ohio as a GOP pickup. That seat is already held by Republican George Voinivich. That would put Republican gains at eight, giving Democrats a 51-49 majority, which will be very difficult to overturn even with Democrats having 21 seats up in 2012, because Obama is leading the ticket.
I agree with you that it was very stupid for Democrats to pull Democrats out of very vulnerable House seats to get them into very uphill Senate battles. I had warned about this as early as December 2008 and nobody listened.
I just thank my stars that they were not able to get Stephanie Herseth to run against Thune, Shuler against Burr or Chandler in the open Kentucky seat.
Nice catch on Ohio. I'll make the necessary changes.
Of the Democrats you listed, Chandler's the only one I could see as having a chance of winning a Senate election in 2010. The only caveat with Melancon is that he would have been redistricted out of his seat by LA's Republican-controlled state government no matter what, so he didn't have much to lose running for the Senate. Had it happened in 2008, it would have probably worked. I would have put my money on Melancon over Vitter in the 2006 or 2008 electoral climate.
I can agree with that, but Ellsworth running for Senate is just idiotic. He would have owned that district for life and now he will probably wreck his career by running for Senate.
I greatly wish Democrats had heeded to my advice for this election cycle back in December 2008.
I had said that the Senate would be safe for Democrats no matter what do to the math this cycle and that they should put everything into trying to hold the House.
It is if the Obama administration actually wants to lose the House by pushing popular incumbents into uphill Senate races. Just maddening. I watched House members Dave McCurdy, Sam Coppersmith, Tom Andrews, and Jim Cooper get blown away in Senate races in 1994 and I predicted that the same thing would happen in 2010if Democrats tried to do this again.
Sometimes it really hurts to be right.
Here are my preliminary thoughts on the Senate races 6 months out. As I mentioned earlier I am going to kick my formula predicting into gear in July, but I have already been watching some races unfold.
Alabama - Total bore. Shelby fits the state very well.
Alaska - Funny how things change. 6 years ago Murkowski was considered vulnerable; now she's the most popular politician in the state. She too will win in a walk.
Arizona - I am very happy about Tucson councilman Rodney Glassman stepping up to the plate here. He has achieved a lot, being a former Vice-Mayor and achieving a JD and PhD, and is all of 31 years old! He could have a fighting chance of winning against Hayworth, but even if he loses to Hayworth or "no longer a maverick" McCain, he could be in a great position to run for Tucson mayor, or for Giffords' district if she beats Kyl in 2012.
Arkansas - I am definitely rooting for Halter to upset "Senator Wal-Mart", and with some other Dems running in the primary, Halter and Lincoln could go into a runoff, where I think Halter could have a really good chance of beating Lincoln, and also fare better in the general against Boozman.
California - I already mentioned that 2010 is going to be a lot more similar to 1998 than 2004 for Boxer, and Republicans are probably rooting for a self-financer to win the primary, so their candidate can still get on the many, many airwaves in the state without the committee having to drop a cent. So they'd be privately rooting for Fiorina to win so they can save their precious dollars for offense and defense elsewhere. Fiorina would also be the better of the 3 in spite of her "demon sheep" fail ads, because she's the feistest of them, plus she's a breast cancer survivor and thus may get some normally Democratic-voting women, Boxer's strongest voting bloc.
Colorado - I admire Bennet also, but am scared about his chances this fall.
Connecticut - I'm very happy with Dodd taking one for the team and am hopeful about Blumenthal holding the seat for the good guys. I hope he learned his lesson from a certain attorney general next door.
Delaware - An unfortunately likely GOP pickup here. WTF were the Bidens thinking?
Florida - Like NY-23, a race that was expected to be a solid retention for Team Red has turned into a crazy, unpredictable 3-way with the Scozzafaving of Crist. Meek was smart to pull a strategy of getting enough signatures (can't remember how many were needed) to file for the election, probably helping to drive up his name ID and favorables while Rubio and Crist were at each other's throats, plus the scandals in the state GOP. I would not be surprised to see Meek eke it out, plus maybe enough Florida voters except in the panhandle would be happy to have the Senate's only black member being one of them.
Georgia - Isakson looks likely for reelection, though Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond is I think a good candidate.
Hawaii - Inouye is a lock.
Idaho - Crapo is a lock.
Illinois - I too am nervous about us holding this seat.
Indiana - Evan Bayh's last-minute retirement actually was more of a good thing for Team Blue than Team Red, in that we got Brad Ellsworth (who is using a very smart slogan "The Senate Needs a Sheriff"), while the Republicans had a 3-way slugfest. Now that they have as their nominee a retread who has said he likes North Carolina, where he lived once, better than Indiana, and he voted for the Brady Bill also, which may drive many normally Republican gun owners in rural Indiana, including Ellsworth's own IN-08, into voting for Ellsworth. That plus the fact that Ellsworth is currently unknown outside IN-08, actually makes me feel pretty good about us holding this seat.
Iowa - I agree Grassley will face probably the strongest challenge in his career but will still win by a good margin.
Kansas - Team Red has a lock on this seat.
Kentucky - I am unsure what to think about this race.
Here's the rest of my predictions.
Louisiana - Melancon did a good move by jumping into this Senate race, because his district is likely to be eliminated in the next round of redistricting, though I agree it's gonna be an uphill battle against Vitter.
Maryland - Mikulski is a lock.
Missouri - Like Fiorina, Robin Carnahan may get some sympathy votes for being a breast cancer survivor, possibly from normally Republican-voting women. Another advantage she has is her last name, while Roy Blunt's last name is more of a liability. In addition, Carnahan is a much better fit for the state than McCaskill, who is socially liberal and somewhat fiscally conservative. Carnahan is the opposite. (Auditor Susan Montee is similar to Carnahan politically, and I would not be surprised to see her mount a primary challenge to and possibly beat McCaskill in 2012.)
Nevada - Just a few months ago I thought Harry Reid was a goner (and did not feel the least bit sorry to see him go), but it looks like Sue Lowden is going to be what Carly Fiorina wasn't, a totally fail candidate with totally fail ads (chickens for checkups?!?). In addition, there will likely be a Tea Party candidate on the ticket, so Reid, as unpopular as he is, may squeak by. (Ugh.)
New Hampshire - I see a Republican resurgence here, because the Democratic resurgence in the previous two elections came from independents, who far outnumber registered Democrats and Republicans combined. So I would not be surprised to see Ayotte win either.
New York - I am not surprised that Schumer is a lock for reelection, and not just because Gillibrand is a better target for Team Red and that he got 14 Democratic Senators elected the last two cycles, but like Boxer, he has a reputation for being a fighter and one of the few Democrats that actually has a spine. (I wish he was Majority Leader instead of that wuss Reid.) Gillibrand I think will win reelection, especially without Pataki in the picture.
North Carolina - The "cursed seat" is up, and I think the "curse" may continue, especially if Marshall wins the runoff. I heard from a friend of mine on an email list who lives in North Carolina, that women candidates fare very well in North Carolina elections, and Marshall's grandmotherly appearance may attract older women, who are critical for statewide victory there.
North Dakota - Solid GOP pickup here. It's a shame Dorgan's leaving.
Ohio - I didn't care who won the primary here, and it's a shame that Brunner couldn't raise more funds, considering the amount of grassroots support she had. And Fisher actually has a progressive record, like he mentions on Daily Kos, though he regrets he didn't make it clearer in the primary. (If he did, he'd have run away with the nomination, and maybe that's why Brunner overperformed expectations.) So Fisher could be another Sherrod Brown and possibly beat Rob "NAFTA" Portman.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2010/5/6/172721/5735/77#c77
Oklahoma - Unfortunately, right-wing batshit craziness is a winner in Oklahoma.
Oregon - Wyden is a lock.
Pennsylvania - With Fast Eddie Rendell's magic gone, Republicans look likely to resurge here. I would not be surprised to see Toomey pull out a win, especially since he mentioned that Sestak was honest about his positions even if they were too liberal for Toomey's taste. Plus Toomey doesn't look as far-right compared to his own primary challenger, pro-life activist Peg Luksik.
South Carolina - DeMint looks like a lock.
South Dakota - Thune is a lock.
Utah - Another lock for Team Red.
Vermont - Leahy is a lock.
Washington - Another shaky Democratic race here. I am most worried about Dino Rossi. If he doesn't run, then Murray will probably have a Boxer-like win.
Wisconsin - What I predict for Boxer and Murray (minus Rossi) I predict the same for Feingold. It would be an incredible shame if Feingold and especially Boxer lose.
I doubt Rossi will even run. He is being hammered on several business/ethical issues and he isnt even in the race.
Sara, thanks for sharing your list. Do you have a guess on how many seats you expect the GOP to gain? I find it interesting that you seem pessimistic about holding Pennsylvania which I think is the Dems' best chance of the toss-up seats out there. While ultra-conservative Rick Santorum was able to win statewide elections in Pennsylvania, the state has changed significantly since his last victory a decade ago and Santorum was much more of a red-meat social conservative while Toomey is a country club fiscal conservative who strikes me as a very tough sell in blue-collar Pennsylvania. It's now looking like Sestak is the most likely Democratic nominee, which Specter can blame only himself for with his unseemly Swift Boat-style attack ads. Considering that Sestak's geographic baseline is the Philly suburbs, the very region that has driven Pennsylvania's politics bluer and bluer in the past decade, I'm still narrowly leaning to the donks on this race.
As for your other projections and my corresponding thoughts....
California--I forgot about Fiorina's self-financing capabilities. What's she worth? Enough to single-handedly take on Boxer's warchest without assistance from the NRSC? I still think Boxer has a narrow edge here, but if Fiorina cancels out the money advantage, that's one less thing for Boxer to grasp onto.
Florida--The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe Rubio wins this thing. My guess is Crist implodes in the final weeks of the campaign as the Democratic base moves to Meek and the center-right decides Rubio is a more acceptable option than Meek. Unless Crist maintains a lead in the weeks before the election and is thus seen as viable to what will be a very shaky coalition of voters, I see the major party candidates both gaining at his expense in the clutch. Again, however, words cannot express how big of a PR coup Rubio will be for the Republicans if he wins.
Indiana--In 2006 or 2008, I'd have been as bullish as you seem to be about Brad Ellsworth. He might have been able to keep things interesting if not for the fact that he voted for the health care bill. That will kill him in Indiana. I definitely disagree with you that we're better off with Ellsworth than Bayh as the Dem emissary here.
Kentucky--Surprised you have no opinion here. I consider it one of the most fascinating races in the country, with a libertarian wingnut poised to become a Senator in one of the nation's most government-dependent states.
Missouri--I've actually been pretty pleased with Claire McCaskill. The fact that the surname Blunt is beating the surname Carnahan in Missouri shows how toxic the political environment is right now. There's no reason in hell we shouldn't be winning this seat in a walk. Unfortunately, I fear the Obama era will permanently realign Missouri onto the red team.
North Carolina--I'm trying not to get too excited about the recent poll surge for Dems. Keep in mind they just finished a primary that raised their profile while Burr has been off the airwaves. I expect the race will revert to a comfortable Burr lead by midsummer.
Ohio--I'll take your word on Fisher, but I'm not sensing he's a fighter, which I think a Democrat needs to be to win in Ohio this year. He continues to be lucky to have an opponent as perfectly ill-conceived as Portman though.
Washington--I think Rossi runs.
California - Boxer's net worth is between $1.1 and $5.3 million. I don't know what Fiorina's is, but she did receive a $21 million severance package when she got kicked out of HP, and receives a pension of $200,000 every year, so maybe she will be able to finance her campaign on her own. In the end though, I think Boxer will win, and because Congress passed HCR reform that even with all its warts is still extremely popular with California Democrats, they are not going to stay home. And the possibility of taking back the governor's mansion is too irresistible for Democrats to stay home as well. Turnout is likely to be higher in 2010 than 2002 methinks.
Florida - True there is the possibility of Crist pulling a Chris Daggett and imploding in the final weeks of the campaign. Though I still think that Meek has a shot with the way he filed for the election with all the signature gathering.
Indiana - While Ellsworth's vote on HCR may hurt him, Coats' work as a lobbyist, especially for some possibly suspect financial institutions may be an even worse Achilles' heel because being associated with banks, especially troubled ones, is probably even less popular in the state than the health care reform, though I have no idea what its numbers are in Indiana.
Kentucky - I do find the race interesting with Paul in the mix, but it's just hard for me to predict the outcome.
Missouri - I personally don't take polls very seriously until after Labor Day, when the general voting population begins to pay more attention. I will include formulas in my polls starting in July, but only to track the predictions as we get closer to Election Day.
North Carolina - I agree with DCCyclone's comment on SSP that Burr's numbers had not improved even when Republican numbers nationwide had improved, even after he became more attentive to the state after Dole lost.
http://www.swingstateproject.com/showComment.do?commentId=133790
Pennsylvania - Toomey may not be a good fit for SWPA, but his fiscal conservatism may resonate with some voters in suburban Philly, like they have in similar areas in NY and NJ in recent elections. From the Washington Examiner, "Bergen County, New Jersey, a 56%-42% Corzine constituency in 2005, came within a point or two of voting for Christie, and in Virginia McDonnell carried 51%-49% Fairfax County—Republican for years but recently in cultural issues and with an increasing immigrant population Democratic (60%-39% Obama in 2008). In addition, Westchester County, New York, voted 58%-42% for a Republican county executive after voting almost exactly the opposite way, in a race involving the same two candidates, four years before. The Philadelphia suburban counties, increasingly Democratic in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, voted Republican in a partisan race for the Supreme Court in 2009."
Okay, I just saw a poll that shows Conway surging and now I am thinking he just might win the primary and I think he'd be the stronger candidate, especially against Paul, who's crushing Grayson. Conway might pull it out but it will be a barnburner all the way to the end.
And I forgot to mention: from the predictions, I predict a net loss of 2 seats for the donks. They lose Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania, while gaining Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio.
Sara, if this truly is an anti-incumbent election(like 1978 or 1992), this is the kind of result that we will see. I would just change Indiana and Illinois around as holds. I dont see a Democrat who isnt named Evan Bayh winning this year and Ellsworth should not have run.
Wow, I definitely think you guys are irrationally exuberant here. Political conditions are gonna have to change dramatically for states like North Carolina and especially Missouri to trade in Republican-held Senate seats for Obama foot soldiers. At this point, I don't think Carnahan has much better chance than Melancon. The calculus for a Meek victory in Florida also seems incredible unlikely. If Rubio can get central Florida Latinos along with his northern Florida and Cuban expatriate coalition, it's game, set, and match for him.
On the other hand, I still can't see blue-collar Pennsylvania electing the snob from the country club over either Specter or Sestak. Yes, local Republicans did well in the Philadelphia suburbs, but I'm less inclined to think they'll reject THEIR OWN INCUMBENT REPRESENTATIVE in favor of someone as far-right as Toomey.
I think the "anti-incumbent" atmosphere directed towards Republicans is primarily gonna be seen in the primaries. Bob Bennett's situation in Utah doesn't strike me as any kind of harbinger at all for what voters' attitudes will be towards the average Republican on the ballot this November.
And I think you are way too pessemistic? Patty Murray losing? No, not even to Rossi. Rossi is not Scott Brown. He has run twice and lost and Murray is a far better campaigner than Martha go on vaction two weeks before the election Coakley. Its almost as if you want Democrats to lose. Christ.
I'm trying to be realistic. If the Republicans enjoy the kind of generic advantage they do now before anybody's even campaigning, history would suggest they're really poised to do impressive things after they go on the offensive in the high-profile fall campaign. Rossi's previous losses were both in Democratic years. It seems unlikely that 2010 will be as Democratic of a year in Washington that either 2004 or 2008were.
Go on the offensive? Republicans have been on the offensive in the past year and a half. The DNC has not unleashed its $50 million warchest on ads warning that Republicans will abolish Social Security and Medicare and put a 23% sales tax on everything that we buy. Not to mention that the DCCC and DSCC have a more than three times that amount of cash on hand as the Republican committees. Im not saying that Republicans wont make impressive gains, but the talk of them gaining 75 seats in the House and winning the Senate is simply laughable.
I meant go on the offensive with a full-on ad blitz. It's easy to point to polls showing Bobby Bright and Michael McMahon with leads in the polls right now against no-name competition that has yet to define themselves or the Democratic incumbent. Take a look at how quickly Joe Sestak rose from oblivion in the polls in a matter of weeks once he hit the airwaves. McMahon MIGHT hang on simply because there does not appear to be any reason for Republicans to head to the polls in New York unless they can find a credible challenger to Gillibrand.
How many seats in the House do you think the Republicans will gain? Every shred of evidence we've seen so far suggests every marginal Democratic seat is in tremendous peril. That's why I'm guessing 75 as a baseline guess.
Im guessing Republicans gain around 27 seats for 205 total. Yes, they could gain 50, but that is the maximum number that I can see. In 1994, Republicans held a 10 point lead in the Gallup generic ballot and they gained 52 seats to get to 230. This year, they are no better than even in the generic ballot and this is before Democrats launch a huge ad campaign in September warning about a "Fair Tax" and Social Security privitization if Republicans win control.
In 1994, the DNC had no money and was unable to run an ad campaign like this. Incumbents were completely on their own.
I have gone through every district and I count 80 "marginal" Dem districts. These are districts that are three or less points Democratic than the national average. This isnt even counting likely Dem pickups of heavily Democratic GOP seats like LA-02(Cao), DE-AL(Open), and IL-10(Open) and the likely take back of HI-01(Djou). That is a net of 76 seats that Republicans could possibly take and in nearly a third of those, Repubicans dont have a credible candidate. To get above that, they would have to start winning inner city districts and black majority districts. They are not going to win every possible marginal Dem seat. That didnt even come close to happening in 2006 or 2008 or even in 1994.
Plus, all those Dems are no Martha Coakleys. They are not going to sleep at the wheel and will air ads far in advance of a week before the election. Had Coakley run a better campaign, or had we run a better candidate like Capuano, there would be no Senator Scott Brown.
Post a Comment
<< Home