I would say he wasn't. He was considered a decent candidate, and had cut a swath up to that point serving as US Attorney for Western AR (resigning in order to run for the Senate). He also spent nearly $1 million (to Bumpers' $1.7 million) in that race, too. It sharply contrasted to the paltry $100k+ that Bill Clark spent in '80 against Bumpers' $200k+ (one reason Clark did so well was because the Fort Chaffee incident negatively impacted on Bumpers, and also helped defeat Clinton after one term as Governor). I wonder if Clark had had that same amount in '80 if he could've taken down Bumpers ?
"What I never understand was how a liberal like Tim Wirth could get elected in a conservative state like Colorado, although it was less Republican back then."
Wirth was pegged as an economic Conservative and it was considered a very evenly-divided race, but would you believe that as with Abdnor & Andrews, it was the farming downturn that cost Kramer those badly-needed votes that would've put him over the top. People sometimes forget that the Eastern half of CO is little different than the Dakotas or other Plains states with the issues most important to them (that being farming).
"Going way back, was Peter Dominick defeated by more than twenty points solely because of Watergate, or did he screw up?"
Dominick was plagued by a number of problems, Watergate being one, but it started off with his health. He had suffered a heart attack and you could tell from his speech, and as a result, couldn't campaign as vigorously as he once did. At that time in the early '70s, the 'Rats were very much in ascendence in CO and they appeared to be on the verge of converting it into a Massachusetts of the Rockies. Hart was a very attractive candidate who had run in the middle ground between an ultraleftist and a moderate Dem in the primary and just simply was able to outmanuever Dominick, who kept downplaying Watergate and making gaffe after gaffe. As you know, CO had unceremoniously dumped Gordon Allott in '72 (almost a precursor to where the country was headed despite the Nixon landslide). Fortunately, '74 was the high-water mark for the 'Rats in CO and the state started to figure out what the new guys were selling was far worse than the product the "old Conservatives" were pushing (albeit they still stuck with the same knuckleheads for 24 straight years in the Governor's office).
"I remember Hart having a close race with Mary Buchanan in 1980."
Hart should've lost, but the GOP badly bungled the primary. Buchanan's goal had only been to get on the ballot, and she won the primary in a split (she was a "moderate", and did little to inspire the GOP base (as Bill Armstrong had in '78 when he deposed Floyd Haskell by the same margin Hart had prevailed over Dominick)). Had Bo Callaway, the former GA Congressman (the first GOPer since Reconstruction) and the man who was denied the Governorship in '66 of that state (despite getting more votes than Lester Maddox), gotten the nomination, he probably could've beaten Hart by a slim margin. There's often a reason why so many pols that start to become unpopular in their state run for President, so that they can avoid being unceremoniously dumped for reelection. That was why Hart decided not to run again in '86, since if he had, he probably would've been defeated by Ken Kramer.
"As to Cranston, why did he have such a close race? I looked up the election results archive for US Senate and he always won fairly easily, except in 1986."
Well, that and '68 against Max Rafferty (who had knocked off the liberal RINO Sen. Tom Kuchel). Cranston was getting old (72), about the oldest person running for reelection in CA history to the Senate (only William Gibbs McAdoo and Hiram Johnson were older (74), but McAdoo was defeated and Johnson was returned, but went on to die in that term at 78, the same age that Cranston was when he left office in '93), and that was a mark against him (he didn't look well) and was regarded as out-of-touch, and lastly was his dreadful attempt to run for President in '84 which cast him in an even more negative light standing against everything that Reagan was for. Congressman Ed Zschau was a Social liberal, but more (as they say) a "fit" for the state. Cranston ran a very negative campaign, and Zschau was forced to respond in kind, however forgetting to put forth a positive message of his own at the end, and that made the difference for Cranston (largely because they drove down the % of voters, and Zschau's own performance in his home area was subpar and he also failed to fully invigorate the Conservative base that only nominally supported him). Zschau, sadly, has sort of set the model since '86 of our running potentially good but ultimately losing and muddled campaigns on behalf of the GOP (only Bruce Hershensohn in '92 running against the evil Boxer or all the money that Mike Huffington was able to use in '94, were able to do better). Hopefully we'll get our act together out there next year, but I'm not holding my breath. CA is a cesspool now, and the reason why CO didn't permanently fall to the 'Rats was because so many California Republicans moved there en masse since the '70s.
"I thought that Jepsen lost to Harkin because of scandal. Something about him going to some spa which turned out to be a whore house. Maybe you could elaborate."
There were a number of reasons Jepsen lost, although strangely enough, he actually had a fairly decent approval rating of something like 60% from what I understood. The massage parlor was one thing, but also his looking a bit arrogant, foolish, and hypocritical on this and other things (projecting an aura of deep conservatism and morality, it was hard to explain away why the parlor, why the traffic infractions, and why even a stance on abortion, which he had approved of back in the legislature, had somehow changed without fully explaining why -- and he often had to do a lot of explaining). He also didn't tend to the issues Iowans wanted of him and it was largely why he was rejected. On second review of Jepsen, I had forgotten just how crippled he was going into '84, and wondered why the state GOP didn't try to remove him in the primary (in the case of Janklow challenging Abdnor in SD in '86, this was where someone truly needed to challenge Jepsen, like ex-Gov. Bob Ray, who probably could've done that and prevailed against Harkin).
"As to Grassley, he has always seemed to project the image of a guy working for his constituents, as opposed to being an ideolouge like Harkin."
Yup, and is why he has been the most popular pol in the state for the past 20 years. It's too bad we couldn't get someone similar to him to take down Harkin. The problem is getting the foot in the door to take him down. If Jim Ross Lightfoot had prevailed in '96, he probably would've been the guy to hold the seat for the long term. I was sorry to see his loss there and then again for Governor in '98 where he assumed he'd be coasting to victory only to lose in a shocker.
"I agree that SD and ND were inexcusible losses. However, Mattingly was vulnerable in Georgia, his elcetion had to mainly with a huge turnout in the Atlanta suburbs and the scandals surrounding Herman Talmadge."
Had Zell Miller knocked off Talmadge in the primary, Mattingly probably wouldn't have beaten him in '80 (and, ironically, they got their showdown 20 years later and Miller did just that). However, Mattingly spent so much time harping on Wyche Fowler's absenteeism that he forgot (!) to attack him on his very liberal record representing the most left-wing district in GA (a swing of merely 12,000 votes that he could've mined out of South GA and the Atlanta 'burbs could've held the seat for Mattingly). Fortunately, the far better Paul Coverdell would rightly get the seat back for us. A good man and great Senator, RIP.
"It's a darn shame Denton lost in Alabama, the man was a true patriot."
Yup, the Admiral was far more so than John McCain. Denton, however, was not a particular good pol, and was outmanuevered by the more skillful Richard Shelby (then a 'Rat) who charged him elite and out-of-touch over all things because he owned 2 Mercedes-Benz, this right before AL recruited them to the state ! Had Shelby pulled that today, he'd have lost. That win was so narrow, only 4,000 votes would've held the seat for us (but, again, having Shelby win it was a loss only on paper and he voted with us more than against us, but I wish he could've taken Heflin's seat and left Admiral Denton's alone).
"I'm not so sure how LA was an inexcusible loss. Again, maybe you could elaborate, because I never really watched that race."
Henson Moore had the potential to take the win in the jungle primary (he beat John Breaux by 7%, but coming up 6% short), and then stupidly got lured into a scheme that appeared to suppress the Black vote that backfired amongst White voters (a tactic old time 'Rats used in the South, but not Republicans in the '80s). Of course, what the 'Rats use in New Orleans with mass-scale vote fraud that reached epic proportions under the Marc Morial regime in '96 for Mary Landrieu's victory is something else entirely, and something, I'm sure, that Breaux benefitted from in '86, though not enough to have outright stolen the election from Moore.
"Thanks for the info!"
You bet. :-)
"Before I leave, you seem to be incredibly well informed regarding past races. Is there some archive I could look at that has this kind of information? Thanks."
Not online in-depth going back like this, unfortunately. I have a complete set of Barone's Almanac of American Politics going back to 1972, which are invaluable. The first 2 editions ('72 & '74) are very difficult to find and can get pricey, but I bought practically all of mine off of eBay for a relatively reasonable sum. If you can get them all, it's definitely worth it for the wealth of info in them.