A Long-Term Senate Democratic Majority? (2008 Senate Preview)

A Long-Term Senate Democratic Majority?
By Chuck Todd, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2006

One reason why Republicans were particularly depressed about losing the Senate this cycle was the demoralizing realization that the party may not have another realistic shot at getting the majority back until 2012.

It's tough to rank the next round of races this early, because it's inevitable that they will be shaken up as incumbents choose whether or not to seek re-election.

In fact, Democrats weren't supposed to pick up any seats in 2006, because the GOP appeared to have the better opportunities. After all, despite holding just 45 seats (counting Vermont independent Jim Jeffords'), Democrats had to defend 18. Furthermore, four of the five Democrats who knocked off GOP incumbents in 2000 were facing their first re-election contests this year.

So for now, with the help of Hotline state editor Quinn McCord, I'm breaking the list into four groups: a current top 10 based on vulnerability; a retirement "watch list"; the recruitment-dependent contests; and the likely "fuhgeddaboudits."

Colorado (Republican Wayne Allard): The elections of '04 and '06 solidified Colorado as a purple state, and the race will be competitive whether Allard retires or not. There's a debate within our office about whether the GOP would be better off with Allard running or not. The pro-Allard side maintains that if the rising star of the state GOP (outgoing Rep. Bob Beauprez) can get thumped as badly as he did, then why risk opening up fissures inside the party (especially with Rep. Tom Tancredo lurking around)? The anti-Allard camp says he's not the most energetic guy and can come across as too stale against a dynamic potential foe like Democratic Rep. Mark Udall.

Louisiana (Democrat Mary Landrieu): The good news for Landrieu is that Republicans will be focused on winning the governorship and other state races in 2007. The bad news is that Democrats weren't even strong enough to seriously contest the two statewide positions elected in '06 (secretary of state and insurance commissioner). Landrieu has benefited from drawing weak opponents, and the GOP may not have another recruit like Sen. David Vitter or Rep. Bobby Jindal to knock off Landrieu.

Maine (Republican Susan Collins): Like Allard, Collins already has a solid Democratic foe. Rep. Tom Allen represents half the state and has been re-elected by wide margins over the past decade. The most important thing to remember about Collins is that she's not her Senate colleague, Republican Olympia Snowe. While she votes like her and has created a centrist image, she still sits in Snowe's shadow. The Northeast was a killing field for Republicans in '06, and if the blue trend continues, Collins may do everything right and still lose (see outgoing Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.).

Minnesota (Republican Norm Coleman): Sen.-elect Amy Klobuchar's 20-point blowout win is encouraging to Democrats and worrisome to Republicans. But Democrats would have to be very lucky to avoid a fierce primary for a second cycle in a row. And Coleman's secret weapon could be Al Franken. If the comedian runs, he's not going to clear the primary field. There are a lot of Democrats who sat out '06 in favor of Klobuchar (like millionaire trial lawyer Mike Ciresi) who probably won't do that again. Franken's presence raises the profile of the race and benefits Coleman financially.

New Hampshire (Republican John Sununu): Two years ago at this time, there was a friendly, seemingly perfectly situated incumbent Republican from a reddish state who we deemed potentially vulnerable but probably strong enough to win re-election. That Republican? Missouri Sen. Jim Talent. There are plenty of similarities between Talent and Sununu (beyond the glasses). They are popular with colleagues, reporters and constituents. But Sununu is facing a challenging demographic shift that appears to be taking place in the Granite State, which is why his '02 foe, Jeanne Shaheen, is flirting with another run. But if Shaheen says no, the Democratic bench is filled with untested candidates.

Oregon (Republican Gordon Smith): Is it a coincidence that the most recent Republican senator to break from Bush on Iraq post-'06 is up for re-election in a blue state in '08? The fact is, Smith is speaking for a lot of Republicans representing swing states or even blue states who are desperate to have Iraq off the table by '08, because if Iraq continues to be viewed as Bush's war (translation: the GOP's war), Smith and Republicans like him just can't survive. The Democratic bench is full of solid second-tier candidates who, with luck and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's help, could be serious challengers.

South Dakota (Democrat Tim Johnson): The fact that Johnson is ranked this low on our initial list is good news for him. Short of Gov. Mike Rounds, there isn't an obvious Republican to challenge him. But the GOP needs to put more Democratic seats in play, and with Sen. John Thune on the short list of potential VP running mates, finding a credible challenger is all the more important for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Iowa (Democrat Tom Harkin): GOP Rep. Steve King sounds like he wants to run, but the ghosts of former Reps. Greg Ganske, Jim Ross Lightfoot, and Tom Tauke are surely giving him pause. Still, some serious Iowa Republican will see all the national press and feel the need to fill the vacuum and take advantage of the potential fundraising boon a presidential contest can provide. The ideal move for incoming NRSC Chair John Ensign (Nev.) would be to buck the trend of recruiting sitting/former House members and convince former GOP Gov. Terry Branstad to come out of retirement.

Montana (Democrat Max Baucus): Baucus never performs as well in presidential years as he does in off-years. Still, no big GOP names have shown any interest in this race. But this may be a "statement race" for the GOP to prove that the last two cycles in Montana were flukes, and that it's time to reassert the GOP as the party of the West -- and one that's open to libertarians.

New Jersey (Democrat Frank Lautenberg): Despite Republicans' dismal track record over the past 30 years, they never completely punt on Senate races here. But there's a big difference between keeping a race technically "competitive" and actually winning.

These nine senators are either contemplating bids for president (and consequently might give up their seats) or have been mentioned as possible retirees. Any open seat is initially seen as competitive, so should one or more of these folks retire, expect the race to vault into our top five.

Alaska (Republican Ted Stevens): His public comments recently have him leaning toward re-election despite early '06 threats to quit simply over the "bridge to nowhere" and ANWR fights.

Delaware (Democrat Joseph Biden): If Biden can run for both, he will. Delaware has a late filing deadline, so he won't have to decide until late in the spring of '08.

Idaho (Republican Larry Craig): The whispers about Craig's political future may be driven by Democratic hopes of creating an open seat. Craig hasn't made any real retirement noise, but we're including his seat on our watch list because he is closing in on 30 years of congressional service.

Massachusetts (Democrat John Kerry): What is he going to do? He wants to run for president but knows the botched Iraq joke has postponed his plans. It seems that if he determines he's a viable White House candidate, he'll go all-in and do something dramatic like quit the Senate immediately and pull a "White House or home" candidacy. If he doesn't run for president, might he tire of the Senate? Perhaps.

Mississippi (Republican Thad Cochran): Cochran's decision to wait a year to announce his plans probably helps Republicans more. GOP Reps. Chip Pickering and Roger Wicker can continue to raise federal money, while the most likely Democrats, such as former Attorney General Mike Moore, twiddle their thumbs.

Nebraska (Republican Chuck Hagel): Hagel said he has three options in '08: running for president, running for re-election or getting out of politics completely. The fact that he, himself, has offered the retirement option tells us he's somewhat serious about it. With so many rumors about other candidates floating around, we wonder if he'll get the itch to join a presidential ticket (of any party) and skip re-election.

New Mexico (Republican Pete Domenici): Of the senators who say they intend to run, it's easiest to picture Domenici changing his mind. He's probably untouchable for re-election, but his retirement would vault this seat to the highest level of competitiveness.

North Carolina (Republican Elizabeth Dole): Democrats continue to murmur that Dole may retire, but that may be wishful thinking. Whatever stock she may or may not have in national GOP circles, she's still an institution.

Virginia (Republican John Warner): Three months ago, it seemed his retirement was a done deal (just ask GOP Rep. Tom Davis). But recently Warner has been offering reasons why he should stay (namely, seniority).

If the right recruits are lured into these races (in addition to some on the fuhgeddaboudit list), they could become competitive. Looking back on Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning in '04 and outgoing Virginia Sen. George Allen this year, sometimes it pays to recruit someone semi-seriously and put a little pressure on a presumed solid incumbent to see if they can still perform.

Illinois (Democrat Dick Durbin): Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich's 10-point victory (with a Green candidate drawing 10 percent) demonstrates the difficulty Republicans are having in this state. Democrats finally control all of the statewide offices.

Michigan (Democrat Carl Levin): Levin has very little cash on hand, but that's probably a sign of his confidence. Republicans are very likely discouraged by the comfortable wins Democrats for statewide office this year, and Levin would probably be even tougher to beat.

Tennessee (Republican Lamar Alexander): Will outgoing Rep. Harold Ford Jr. run again? We hear he's got a longer list of reasons to run than not. That said, Alexander is no Bob Corker (no offense, Mr. Sen.-elect).

Kentucky (Republican Mitch McConnell): Given the reticence of so many Democrats to challenge Gov. Ernie Fletcher, it's difficult to see where a strong challenge to McConnell would come from. Still, he seems unlikely to get a complete pass.

Wyoming (Republican Mike Enzi): 2006 proved that 70 percent of voters here are willing to vote for a Democrat, and nearly 50 percent will even do so for a federal office. But a GOP incumbent would need to have committed quite a fireable offense to lose re-election here, and Enzi doesn't seem to fit that bill.

Alabama (Republican Jeff Sessions): Remind us again why Rep. Artur Davis (D) is encouraged by Ford's run in Tennessee this year? Ford had a weaker opponent, a less Republican state and a Democratic wind at his back and still lost (though doing better than many thought he would). This state just doesn't seem inclined to elect Democratic senators of any race at this point. And Davis just landed a slot on the House Ways and Means committee -- a big reason not to vacate his seat.

Arkansas (Democrat Mark Pryor): Although it's a red-tinted state at the presidential level, the GOP bench here is weak beyond imagination, and local voters have little problem electing Democrats in statewide elections.

Georgia (Republican Saxby Chambliss): Democrats have had a pretty miserable five years here. But that might give them even more incentive not to give Chambliss a pass in '08, to say nothing of the national Democratic anger over Max Cleland's loss in '02.

Kansas (Republican Pat Roberts): The state certainly showed a blue streak this year. Still, it's worth remembering that Democrats haven't elected a senator here since the '30s.

Oklahoma (Republican Jim Inhofe): Although Inhofe may be despised by some national Democrats, local officials realize that challenging a GOP incumbent in a presidential year is a tall order, and no one is rushing for the nomination.

Rhode Island (Democrat Jack Reed): Even if Reed were half the senator that he is, there would be no hope of defeating him in this deep-blue state.

South Carolina (Republican Lindsey Graham): Even GOP incumbents with quirks tend to win re-election here. The Democrats' best shot -- and probably only hope -- is if Graham loses to an ultra-conservative primary challenger, but even that is highly speculative at this point.

Texas (Republican John Cornyn): Democrats just haven't shown the ability to win statewide elections here over the past few cycles. And it would take massive amounts of money to bump off an incumbent in this huge state.

West Virginia (Democrat Jay Rockefeller): He's still a retirement possibility (he's a spring chicken compared to Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd), but if he runs, the GOP bench is probably too thin to challenge him.

-- Chuck Todd is a NationalJournal.com contributing editor and editor in chief of The Hotline. His e-mail address is ctodd@nationaljournal.com.

Wishing no ill health upon Mr. Johnson, but I would LOVE to see the hissy fit the dims would put on if their governor has the opportunity to appoint a Repug. "It's not fair!" will be wailed from coast to coast.

Then why did they choose to govern in a less than conservative manner? Why did they take potshots at the CinC? Why did they drag their feet on immigration reform? Why did they go weak on judges, instituting an extra-Constitutional "Gang of 14"?

Barring Colorado and John Warner retiring in Virgina( which looks unlikely) I dont see potential GOP loses in the senate.

Even in Colorado, Wayne Allard looks formidable and unless fools like Tancredo mess it up with a primary run, Allard should be a favourite to win his reelection.

Reality ping: Senator Johnson may not make it out the week, let alone this term. And (call me ghoulish) if the Republicans have any cajones at all, the GOP governor will appoint a Republican to take his place, citing GA in, what, 1998? when Zell was appointed to fill a GOP seat?

LS,

That would probably make the 2008 cycle easier, but if you put SoDak in the R column what other pick up is out there other than Louisiana?

Meanwhile we got to play defense on Minnesota, Oregon, New Hampshire, Maine, and any retirements.

2006 was actually a positive board for us 15R's to defend 15 D's to attack. In 2008 it's more like 22R's to defend 11 D's to attack. Much harder starting point.

I was one of those who chastized you. I was wrong---but the evidence I was reading said we would win, and win substantially, namely turnout models. OK, so now we have a different model. I'll believe polls, now, until they give me a reason not to (their history, though, is that pretty soon, they will).

That said, consider how close a "veto-proof" majority really was: Johnson (SD) sick and possibly dying, and could be replaced by a Republican; Allen, Talent, and Burns all had very close elections. Both Kean and Steele---even by your polls---were tied or trailing only slightly going into the last week. (The argument around here---apparently valid---was that "polls don't count" in Dem states, because there will be higher Dem turnout. OK, I buy that). In retrospect, Santorum was a lost cause, and MI wasn't as close as SOME polls suggested.

The point is, it was NEVER a "slam dunk" that we could get a veto proof majority, any more than it was a slam dunk we would lose. Shifts of 50,000 votes or thereabouts would have given us three senate seats.

So, no, I don't think the vision of a "veto proof" Senate was out of reach, ever.

That would probably make the 2008 cycle easier, but if you put SoDak in the R column what other pick up is out there other than Louisiana?

The only one I see that is semi-realistic would be New Jersey. Frank Lautenberg has indicated that he is running again. He'll be 84 on election day, and his approval rating is in the high 30's to low 40's range. According to SurveyUSA's rankings of Senate approval ratings, Lautenberg has the lowest approval rating of any Senator who will be returning to the Senate next year. All that said, I'll believe a Republican winning NJ when I see it.

All that said, I'll believe a Republican winning NJ when I see it.

That U.S. Attorney by the last name of Christie. He might be able to pull that off.

But I'm with you on the whole "I'll believe it when I see it" when it comes to New Jersey.

Oh, I agree it will be harder now. But this is politics. As we just saw, if the mood of the voters is nasty, it doesn't matter who you are---conservative (Santorum), liberal (Chaffee), or undecided (DeWine)---you will be kicked out. The same is true for Dems. If they botch this stuff, the voters will turn on them, especially if there is no sense of leadership but just more complaining. So I wouldn't worry so much about the names right now.

I guess one of the mistakes of 2006 was that we thought certain names just wouldn't lose (Hayworth, Santorum, Talent, Allen). So it's back to the drawing board.

OK, so now we have a different model.

Turnout wasn't the deciding factor. There was not a significant change in turnout between 2004 and 2006. In 2004, turnout for House races was 38D - 38R - 25I. In 2006, it was 38D - 36R - 25I.

The difference in this election was how independents voted. In 2004, they went narrowly for Democrats, 49-46. In 2006, they broke heavily for Democrats, 57-39. That shift in independents accounted for two-thirds of the Democrats' overall vote-share gain.

I guess one of the mistakes of 2006 was that we thought certain names just wouldn't lose (Hayworth, Santorum, Talent, Allen). So it's back to the drawing board.

I always thought Santorum was in trouble an that the Talent race would be a squeaker one way or another. I never imagined George Allen or JD Hayworth losing. Then again who knew JD wouldn't give back the Abramoff clients' contributions and Allen would say maccaca.

I always thought Santorum was in trouble an that the Talent race would be a squeaker one way or another. I never imagined George Allen or JD Hayworth losing.

Same here. Going back 12-18 months, I figured we would lose 2-3 seats. Santorum for sure. Probably Chafee. Maybe one other, and that we'd have a good chance to offset a loss with a pickup in Minnesota. Those were the days!

"They have allot of soul-searching and fence-mending and policy-changing, or they are going to be in the minority (again) for decades."

Which is exactly where they deserve to be if they will not govern like conservatives.

" I don't think the vision of a "veto proof" Senate was out of reach, ever."

Everything is out of reach when you turn off your base to the point that your base actively opposes you and moves into the enemy camp. And that is exactly what the GOP under Bush did. Now the Reagan democrats are back in the Democrat camp and the GOP is screwed. Without the Reagan Democrats the GOP will never control congress. We damn well better start talking about thier issues and fast.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.