Democrats actually hold 57 seats in the Senate. There are two third–party/independent senators who caucus with them and usually vote with them.
But, from late June of last year, when Al Franken was declared the winner of the Minnesota Senate race, until January of this year, when Republican Scott Brown won the special election to pick the person who would complete the unexpired term of Democrat Ted Kennedy, the Democrats controlled 60 seats — which, at least in theory, protected them from the threat of a filibuster by the minority party.
In theory — if not in practice — the Democrats could have done anything they wanted to do in that six–month window of opportunity.
But, if they took advantage of that opportunity and rammed through any landmark legislation during that time, I guess they must have assumed that the voters would just know without being told.
And that is a very dangerous assumption to make. (Politics, as you may have noticed, is not a good profession to choose if one is squeamish about self–promotion.)
At the same time, I can understand the frustration of some people in public service who do good deeds all the time and don't want to take credit for them — but then get criticized for not doing enough simply because they assumed the voters would be smart enough to make note of what they had done.
They seldom do, of course. That's part of the reason why the most successful politicians are the ones who learn early how to repeatedly exploit their own accomplishments, as meager as they might be, and tear down the opposition at every opportunity.
There are people in both parties who excel at this. And it can be frustrating for the rest of us who just want to see government do what it is intended to do — and don't particularly care who gets the credit.
"The masses are asses," an old friend of mine liked to say. And, after just about any election, you can find someone who will say something similar.
That being the case, I have no doubt there will be many Democrats expressing such a sentiment after Nov. 2 — but, if they hope to win an election in the future, they won't say it too loudly.
Anyway, unless the Republicans can count on the two third–party/independent senators to vote with them, the GOP needs to win at least 10 Senate seats to claim a majority in that chamber.
A gain of nine seats won't be enough. Nine seats would make the division a tie — and Vice President Joe Biden would cast the deciding vote in the case of a tie. If you're a Republican, that isn't really what you're looking for.
Ten seats is a tall order. That's 10% of the total.
But is it really so far–fetched? Yesterday, I predicted that Republicans would increase their total in the House by 45 seats — and that is more than 10% of that chamber's total.
Now, it is true that such a shift in the Senate is quite uncommon. It has happened only a handful of times in the last 100 years. But it is not unprecedented.
Republicans won 12 formerly Democratic seats in 1980 when they took control of the Senate. In 1958, Democrats seized the Senate when they won 13 Republican seats plus two newly created seats.
Republicans also enjoyed a double–digit gain in 1946. Democrats had double–digit gains in 1932 and 1910.
In 1994 — when Republicans seized control of both chambers of Congress for the first time since the 1950s — the GOP only won nine Senate seats. But that was impressive enough, and it was more than was needed for the Republicans to take control of the Senate from the Democrats.
In 1986, Democrats won eight seats as they took back control of the Senate for the first time in Ronald Reagan's presidency.
But that is what happened in the past. What is going to happen in the immediate future?
Well, let's start by acknowledging that about one–third of the Senate seats are up for election in any given election year. So roughly two–thirds of the members will be back in Washington the January after the election.
Sometimes the number of seats that will be on the November ballot exceeds one–third. That's the case this year. Both the president and vice president were sitting senators when they were elected in 2008, and temporary replacements had to be named, but it was known all along that special elections would be held this year to pick their successors.
And, then, President–elect Barack Obama chose two sitting senators to join his Cabinet — so similar arrangements were necessary in those states.
And, following Sen. Robert Byrd's death last summer, a special election had to be held in West Virginia to pick his successor.
As a result, the occupants of nearly 40 Senate seats will be decided in this election.
Yet only about half of the races are regarded as being competitive — to any extent — and that includes races in which the nominee of either party is said to be likely to win or the voters are said to be leaning in either direction.
Among the seats that are on this year's ballot are seats that are regarded as safe — in both parties. Democrats can expect Daniel Inouye, Barbara Mikulski, Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy to be returned to the Senate, just as Republicans can be confident that eight of their incumbents are in no danger (and that open seats in Kansas and Utah will remain in GOP hands).
Can the Republicans achieve a net gain of 10 seats under those circumstances?
The Senate
Let's examine this from three perspectives:
- Seats Likely to Flip From Republican to Democrat: At this point, the Democrats seem unlikely to capture any of the currently Republican–held seats that are on the ballot in 2010 — with the possible exception of Jim Bunning's vacated seat in Kentucky. That appears to represent the Democrats' sole chance to pick up a seat from the other party, and it is regarded as a tossup by most political analysts.
But recent polls from both Mason–Dixon and Rasmussen say Republican Rand Paul has a five–point lead. In the waning days of the election, it will become harder to make up that much ground.
So it appears probable, at this point, that Republicans will hold that seat — and, thus, retain all 41 of the Senate seats they currently hold. That doesn't mean that Republicans are certain to retain all their seats. Republicans do hold vacant seats in which their nominees are in front (i.e., Missouri and New Hampshire), but not by enough to make victory a sure thing at this point.
And, while there is some question about whether Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who was defeated in her bid for renomination by Alaska's Republicans, can succeed in her write–in attempt to hold her seat, there seems to be little doubt that either she or the Tea Partier who toppled her will win. The Democrat really doesn't appear to have any hope of winning in that libertarian state.
Likewise, in Florida, where Republican–turned–independent Charlie Crist is running second to Republican Marco Rubio, the Democratic candidate is so far behind that he appears to have no chance.
But those seats — as well as the one in Ohio — are open seats. In races where Republican incumbents are on the ballot, few, if any, are in any kind of jeopardy. Louisiana's David Vitter, for example, seems to be safely ahead, and North Carolina's Richard Burr is in front, but he doesn't seem to have persuaded a majority of likely voters yet.
Nevertheless, most political analysts refuse to irrevocably close the door on any possibility that the challenger(s) in those races might win.
So hope lives for Democrats in those states — at least until Nov. 2. - Seats Likely to Flip From Democrat to Republican: I'm sure it comes as no surprise to anyone that the story is quite different on the Democrats' side of the aisle.
With nine days remaining until Election Day, Republicans now seem all but certain to win the seats being vacated by Democrats in Indiana and North Dakota.
As for the Democratic incumbents who are on the ballot ...
The news is not good for Russ Feingold in his bid for a fourth team as the senator from Wisconsin. He may well win, but polls suggest he faces the most significant challenge he has ever faced.
If it is true, as polls have been saying all year, that Republican voters are more energized about voting this year than are Democrats — and I suspect it is — Feingold's chances may depend on the enthusiasm level for other races on the ballot.
But neither Feingold nor his supporters can find much comfort in that. The Republican who is seeking the governorship that is presently held by a Democrat enjoys a nine–point lead in a recent poll so if there is any trickle–down benefit to be had, it probably will be on the Republican side. (Wisconsin's governor announced last year that he wouldn't be running for another term.)
And, well, I suppose the less said about Blanche Lincoln and her quixotic quest for a third term as the senator from Arkansas, the better.
So that's a net gain of four seats for the Republicans.
Which brings us to ... - The Battlegrounds: The challenge, therefore, facing the Republicans — assuming that they can count on winning those four seats I just mentioned — is to win at least six of seven Democratic seats that are currently rated as tossups.
If they do, they will reclaim the majority in that chamber. Think they can do it?
Yesterday, Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times acknowledged that Republicans are "in a strong position to win the House" but insisted that Democrats are clinging to "a narrow edge in the battle for the Senate."
If that edge is as narrow as it seems to be — and it appears to be paper–thin — it may not take much of a nudge in either direction to push many of these states into the other column.
Let's look, briefly, at those seven states:
California — Sen. Barbara Boxer has been seen by many as unbeatable. But I think that, like the unsinkable Titanic, she, too, can go down.
And the New York Times reports that Republicans in California have been energized by their desire to defeat Boxer.
Recent polls conducted by Rasmussen and SurveyUSA have found that Boxer leads by two percentage points — which is well within the margin of error so such findings mean a statistical dead heat — but Boxer may well benefit from a reverse of the Wisconsin situation.
Instead of trailing her challenger by two percentage points, Boxer leads. And, in California's race to choose a successor for its Republican governor, the Democrat leads by six points.
In short, Boxer just might pull it off. But it's still too close for anyone to take for granted.
Colorado — When Obama tapped Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar to be a member of his Cabinet, Michael Bennet was named to fill the remainder of the term. Now, he's seeking a full term on his own.
Bennet currently trails by three points, according to Reuters/Ipsos. It's a neck–and–neck race that will bear watching on Election Night.
Illinois — Speaking of Obama ...
When he was elected president, as just about everyone knows (or ought to know), he had to resign his seat in the Senate, and the governor of Illinois, who had to appoint Obama's replacement to serve until the voters could select his successor, was accused of offering the seat to the highest bidder.
Eventually, of course, a replacement was chosen, and the replacement is not seeking a full term.
But if the latest Mason–Dixon survey is correct, the Democrats won't hold on to the seat after the midterm elections are over.
It's close, within the margin for error. Keep an eye on it.
Nevada — When this election campaign is over, I definitely will not miss the weekly updates on the Sharron Angle–Harry Reid battle.
No matter which side you're on, you have to admit it has been a volatile campaign. And the lead seems to change with each new survey. Right now, the wind seems to be favoring Angle — at least, according to Rasmussen.
But that may change before the election. Angle leads by three percentage points. The week before that, her lead was two points. In the weeks prior to that, Reid held similar leads.
Pennsylvania — Eighteen months ago, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter couldn't switch parties fast enough. Observers said he was salvaging his political career by climbing aboard the train with all the momentum.
But that train left the station without him. He lost the Democratic primary a year later, and now it looks like Specter might have been doomed from the start. The fellow who was said to be likely to beat him in the Republican primary, Pat Toomey, is leading the fellow who eventually beat Specter in the Democratic primary, Joe Sestak, by three or four percentage points.
Washington — Democratic Sen. Patty Murray is in a tight race for re–election. Mind you, she has never been the recipient of the kinds of victory margins that many incumbent senators get — typically, her support level has been in the mid– to upper 50s, which has been respectable, comfortable even, but never quite a sure thing until the election is over.
In this apparently Republican year, the original "mom in tennis shoes" has been battling a formidable adversary, Dino Rossi, who lost the closest gubernatorial race in American history six years ago.
Clearly, he knows how to compete for votes. And the race has been unusually fluid, even for Washington, where close races seem to be the norm.
West Virginia — This race is perhaps the most bewildering of this year's Senate races for me, and there are many reasons for that.
For starters, it wasn't on anyone's radar until Byrd died in late June. I don't know if Byrd would have sought another term when his current term expires in 2012. He was in his 90s, after all, and he had been in poor health.
But when he died, I think most people believed the voters would elect another Democrat to replace him.
True, West Virginia has voted Republican in the last three presidential elections. But, since 1958, only Democrats have been elected to represent the state in the U.S. Senate — and no West Virginia Republican has been elected to a full six–year term in the Senate since 1942.
For another, Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin, who is trying to win the special election that will choose the person who will complete Byrd's term, comes from a prominent political family and is popular with the voters. He was elected governor with nearly two–thirds of the vote in 2004, and he was re–elected with about seven–tenths of the vote in 2008.
Yet he is in a seesaw battle with businessman John Raese. Last week, Rasmussen reported that Raese led by seven percentage points. But, prior to that, I saw a poll that had Manchin leading by 10 points, and the week before that, I saw a poll that showed the race was a dead heat.
Who ya gonna believe?
Raese is no political novice, although he has never held political office. He ran unsuccessfully against both Byrd (in 2006) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (in 1984), and he also ran an unsuccessful bid for the Republican gubernatorial nomination (in 1988) so there seems to be little about waging a statewide campaign in a largely rural state that could possibly come as a surprise to him now. He just hasn't experienced the successful part.
But I have a hunch that's going to change.
That means that the Republicans will control 50 seats and the Democrats will control 50 seats (48 of their own plus the two independent/third–party senators who caucus with them).
No comments:
Post a Comment