Given that Republicans need to win 40 House seats to take back the majority, and that, assuming Al Franken wins, they need to win 10 Senate seats to take back the majority, we are not in real danger of losing the trifecta in two years time. Recent problems caused by Republican governance make such a sweep highly unlikely in either chamber. This is especially the case in the Senate where, of the 35 Senators up for election in 2010 (Gillibrand included), only 16 are Democrats. As such, Democrats only need to win 7 of the 35 Senate campaigns in 2010 in order to retain the majority, which is an extraordinarily easy task.
However, if Democrats lose seats in the 2010 election, even though they will maintain control of the trifecta, they will be in serious jeopardy in both the 2012 and 2014 elections. There are three reasons for this:
- First, after four years of the trifecta, if Democrats have not produced real accomplishments to turn the country around, voters will be ready to turn back to Republicans. While the 2003-2006 Republican trifecta, not to mention the Bush Presidency, will still be a recent memory, if Democrats don't do any better, they will be thrown out on their ears.
- Second, since we must show real accomplishments after four years of trifecta rule in order to do well in 2012 and beyond, it is necessary to still have legislative momentum on our side. Given the difficulties we have already had with the jobs / stimulus package, if we were to lose seats in the House and Senate in 2010, that momentum would completely stall. Republicans would be able to wring even more concessions out of us, and Democrats will become even more centrist and cautious. So, losing seats will go a long way toward sinking our legislative possibilities.
- Third, since there is a census in 2010, if Republicans do well in the midterm elections, they will control redistricting. This will give them a built in advantage in the House for the 2012 and 2014 elections. Also, in the Senate, 43 of the current 59 Democratic Senators will be up for election in either 2012 or 2014. So, if we lose Senate seats in 2010, it is almost a foregone conclusion that Republicans will take back the Senate. The only question will be if it happens in 2012 or 2014.
So, in short, we need 2010 to set up 2012 and 2014. We need to run up as large a buffer in the Senate as possible. We need to control redistricting. We need to be able to maintain legislative momentum. We need to be able to start fixing the many problems the country faces. We won't be able to do any of these things if Republicans perform well in the 2010 elections.
With this in mind, let's look at some minimum and maximum goals for the 2010 elections:
- U.S. House. At a minimum, we need to reach 258 seats after the 2010 election in the House. This would be a net gain of one seat after the 2008 elections. Such an achievement would make it impossible to credibly argue that the country is unhappy with the way Democrats are governing, since it rewarded them with an extra seat.
The maximum goal for the House is a net of 12 non-Blue Dog seats, thus creating a non-Blue Dog majority. Currently, there are 229 members of the House who are either Blue Dogs (51) or Republicans (178). We need to take away twelve of those seats, which probably means an overall Democratic net of about 16 House seats, given that Blue Dogs account for about one-quarter of all seats we win from Republicans. Such a majority would not have to deal with fiscal responsibility summits and PAYGO extortion.
- U.S. Senate: The minimum for the Senate is a net pickup of two seats. Not only would this bring the Democratic total to 61, thus giving us the filibuster with room to spare, but it would also mean that Democrats won a majority of 2010 Senate races (18 of 35). Jointly, these two developments would make it impossible to argue that the country would prefer more centrist, or more Republican, governance. So, we maintain legislative momentum.
The maximum goal for the Senate is a net pickup of eight seats, bringing the Democratic caucus to a whopping total of 67. Such a rout would actually allow Senate Democrats to change Senate rules (cough, filibuster, cough), and even to pass constitutional amendments through the chamber.
Picking up 12 non-Blue Dogs and eight Senators, while difficult, are achievable targets for 2010.
In the Senate, there are already five open Republican seats: Florida, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio. With the exception of Kansas, where we can run the popular Kathleen Sebelius, we already have a Senator in all of these states. As long as we get the right candidate combination, all five of these seats can be won.
Additionally, Pennsylvania (Arlen Specter) can be won, bringing us to six. In Kentucky, senile Jim Bunning is unpopular, and only won by 2% in 2004, but insists he is running again anyway. That's seven. The best bet for the eighth seat is probably North Carolina, a newly minted blue state with a freshman Senator who holds a seat that has changed party hands in six consecutive elections. It won't be easy, and it will require running the table without suffering any losses, but a net Senate pickup of eight seats is not impossible.
In the House, 30 Republicans won re-election with 55.0% of the vote or less. While that number is significantly greater on the Democratic side, it does still show that a net pickup of 16 seats or more is at least possible. With one or two successful primary challenges against Blue Dogs, netting 12 non-Blue Dogs in the House becomes even more doable.
So, that is the broad outlook for now. I'll have a look at redistricting in a separate post, because it is a vast subject that deserves special attention. |
