The Senate picture could get even worse for Democrats

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 18:06


Even before Evan Bayh's retirement, the latest Senate polling showed Democrats teetering between only a 52-48 and 53-47 Senate majority after 2010.   With Bayh's retirement, Democrats are now firmly staring at a 52-48 majority.

But, it could get even worse than that for Democrats.  Potential Republican Senate recruits in a number of states could even threaten Democratic control of the chamber:

  1. Maryland: If incumbent Barbara Mikulski retires, as a new report is claiming, that would create an open seat in Maryland.  Democrats would still be favored to win, but by no means would they be a lock.  Mikulski, by contrast, would not have faced any serious opposition.

  2. New York: If former Republican Governor George Pataki were to enter the campaign, he would start 3.5% ahead of Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, according to the Pollster.com trendline.

  3. Washington: If two-time Gubenatorial loser Dino Rossi were to enter the campaign against Patty Murray, he would start the campaign 2% ahead, according to Rasmussen polling.

  4. Wisconsin: If former Republican Tommy Thompson were to enter the campaign, he would start in a dead-heat with Democrat Russ Feingold.  Feingold is currently well-clear of all other Republican candidates.
If Republicans can indeed put up to four more Senate seats into play, they would indeed threaten control of the chamber itself.  They have plenty of time to put this together, too, as all four of these states have filing deadlines in June or later.

There is no guarantee at all that we have hit the bottom yet.  Even Democratic control of the Senate after 2010 is somewhat in question.

Update: Mikulski rumors are not true, according to Chris Cillizza.

Chris Bowers :: The Senate picture could get even worse for Democrats

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

The Senate picture could get even worse for Democrats | 74 comments
If Democrats lose control of the Senate, (4.00 / 4)
it means they won't be able to get anything done.  Just like now, when Democrats "control" the Senate.
Yeah, but can you imagine (4.00 / 2)
how well Obama's triangulation would work with a GOP-controlled Congress?

Speaking of triangulation, how long before the Bayh-for-pres-as-indie chatter begins?

[ Parent ]
As I have said, a GOP controlled Congress guarantees (4.00 / 2)
an Obama re-elect in 2012.
[ Parent ]
Wont Get My Vote (4.00 / 4)

[ Parent ]
Wont Get My Vote (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
The strategy is not reliant on us (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Still Wont Get My Vote (4.00 / 5)
If Rahm and Obama lose the House and the Senate,  I wouldn't vote them dog catcher of Bum Fuck.
[ Parent ]
That assumes (4.00 / 1)
Obama can survive the numerous investigations the GOP will no doubt launch.  Issa will inevitably pursue the AIG bailout (one of the potentially few good things to come from a GOP win in November is the investigation into Bernanke, now an Obama person, and Geithner's action with regard to AIG).  There will also be the random, bullshit investigations (see, e.g., travelgate, white water, etc.). Chicago Democratic politics is a sewer and you can bet the GOP will look to expose it and Obama's connection to it, real or imaginary.

The mistake many people make in comparing Obama's ability to position himself against a GOP Congress to Clinton is to believe Obama has the same fortitude to withstand the VRWC with subpoena power.  IMO, he does not.  Clinton was able to survive because the people believed, rightly or wrongly, that he cared about them and had their backs.  Obama's never had that relationship with working class  voters (non-African American).  There's simply no way, for example, Obama would shut down the government over Medicare or any other "entitlement" or program that benefits regular people and might gain him some of that support. Moreover, he's always been dependent on media love. I don't think he knows how to operate in the kind of hostile media environment that dominated the 1990s and could return in an instant. As a result, the GOP Congress will shred him bit by bit for the next two years.  

Then add on 10% unemployment (official rate), the cuts to "entitlements" in the name of deficit reduction, and on-going unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and you have the makings of a one-term president.  

[ Parent ]
Well, his left-wing base can save him, since he's a committed leftwing socialist ideologue as the Right likes to scream (4.00 / 2)
Oh wait...
[ Parent ]
He won't run as an indie (4.00 / 1)
he will run to Obama's right in the primaries.

If the economy does not significantly recover by mid-2011 both the left and the right will be looking for candidates to run against Obama.

[ Parent ]
no, he will hope that Obama replaces Biden (4.00 / 5)
with him on the ticket. Or, he will run in 2016.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
WAG (0.00 / 0)
is that Obama replaces Biden with Gregoire.
[ Parent ]
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
on many levels.
[ Parent ]
What makes you think he's to Obama's right? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
A few observations: (4.00 / 6)
A. Mikulski's retirement is rumored on a TEA PARTY site.
B. Rossi is not gearing up for a run.
C. Pataki has been silent and doesn't even have an exploratory committee.
D. Tommy Thompson just got a job with a consulting group, he respects Russ too much to actually run against him, and he doesn't have the stamina for this.
Rossi also has no interest. (4.00 / 3)
Rasmussen polls to encourage people to run, not because they are actually going to run.
[ Parent ]
Hope you are right about everything (4.00 / 1)
Seriously, I do. But a number of things have taken us by surprise lately.

Still, I hope you are right. This is a pretty solid group of four Democratic Senators, and I would like to see them all back in 2011.

[ Parent ]
I'm not concerned about Democrats' (4.00 / 1)
ability to hold Mikulski's seat, I'm concerned about her going (which is totally unsure).  I still remember her during the health care bill mark up on the HELP Committee calling out Senator Roberts for his scaremongering.
[ Parent ]
Solid? Murray? (4.00 / 1)
She voted against drug importation, and against capping usury. If that's solid...
[ Parent ]
so? (4.00 / 1)
point to a Democrat who hasn't made unfavorable votes in the Senate.  
[ Parent ]
You've got to be joking (4.00 / 1)
two votes that should have been automatic, and you expect me to dismiss them? Even if she wasn't a three-term Senator in leadership, I would expect her to vote for those.

For myself, I'm voting for whoever runs against her. Period.

[ Parent ]
Feingold voted (0.00 / 0)
for Ashcroft, Roberts, guns in national parks...those seems pretty automatic. Yet, I wouldn't consider voting against him.

Hell, even Sanders voted to allow guns in national parks.

Yeah, I do expect you to dismiss them, because you're never gonna get a Senator who votes 100% party line...ever.

But do whatever you want anyway, just don't be shocked if you die old and gray with nothing you want having gotten done.

[ Parent ]
Al Franken (0.00 / 0)
100% on crucial votes in Progressive Punch.
[ Parent ]
Franken's only been a Senator for seven months (0.00 / 0)
give it time.  
[ Parent ]
Actually, I would like to see Kirsten Gillibrand replaced by Jonathan Tasini in 2011 (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Pataki also left state wide office with approval in the 30s (4.00 / 4)
Whatever polls are saying right now, he has some major problems in the state once people are reminded of them.
[ Parent ]
Here's that Marist Poll from 2006 (4.00 / 5)
"Governor Pataki's job performance rating hits an all time low: Only 30% of New York State's registered voters rate the job Governor Pataki is doing in office as excellent or good. This is his lowest point since he assumed office and the lowest approval rating for a governor since the Marist Poll began measuring statewide officeholders twenty-three years ago."

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/n...

As I said before, we should not assume that Gillibrand is a slam dunk. It is just that all the high profile people that would be her opponents come into the race as damaged goods regardless of what the polls on the surface are saying. Pataki is one of them. He looks great until you start to remind voters of why they hated him so much in the past.  

[ Parent ]
Right on (4.00 / 4)
Tommy Thompson isn't getting in.

And even if he does, I think he loses.  The polling right now for a hypothetical matchup doesn't mean much to me.  Feingold is loved by Democrats and young people in this state and they will fight like hell to keep him in the Senate.  

That, and Feingold himself runs a heck of a campaign.  He has always geared up for his campaigns, even when running against nobodies.  He has not been sitting idle this year, either.

[ Parent ]
Long time lover of Feingold here... (0.00 / 0)
...all ready to vote against him.

When Tommy Thompson votes for highways and prisons you know it's because he believes in highways and prisons. With Feingold, who knows?

[ Parent ]
Chris Cilizza states that the rumors are false. (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
This isn't an excuse to be lazy, but.... (4.00 / 5)
In Washington state, Dino Rossi is ALWAYS ahead in the polls until election day, when he loses.  He lost by a much larger margin in 2008 than in the 2004 squeaker for Governor, and the noise about his potential victory was louder in 2008.

In Wisconsin, never underestimate Senator Fiengold.  Never overestimate how much people in the state like former Governor Thompson.

It all still requires fighting like hell in the trenches, but it also requires being realistic, and I personally consider neither potential loss above as realistic given current parameters.  (I have opinions of NY and MD as well, but not personal experience with either, so....)

Fairly certain (4.00 / 3)
Mikulski is not retiring.  She recently hired a very good campaign manager and is planning to campaign very hard.
The same was said about Evan Bayh .. (0.00 / 0)
last week
[ Parent ]
Feingold won't be beat (4.00 / 2)
He's got a lot of money, and he's wisely distanced himself from Obama. Plus voters seem like to conviction.

He's a REAL maverick. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Is he a REAL maverick? (4.00 / 4)
:-)
[ Parent ]
lol, my computer glitched and accidentally multi-posted (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
I know (4.00 / 1)
just teasing.
[ Parent ]
He has conviction in being inscrutable (0.00 / 0)
He'll run neck-and-neck with Wall or whoever the Republians nominate. If Thompson runs, Thompson will win. I'm so disgusted with Democrats that I'll happily vote for anyone against a Democrat this year. What's the difference? (Please, don't try to tell me about all the little things that we hang on while Democrats persist in their endorsement of slavery for the middle and lower classes. Please. Please don't start that line of argument because you'll just make yourself look like you're happy being a slave yourself.)
[ Parent ]
Holy crap, multi-posting bananza up there. (0.00 / 0)
Chris, could you please delete all of them please?
Nah.. leave it! (4.00 / 8)
It's mavericky!  ;-)

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Yeah, in retrospect (4.00 / 3)
I deleted them, but I kind of wish I kept them now. Sort of like performance art, or something.

Oh well.

[ Parent ]
the other possibility (0.00 / 0)
is always health, especially given the age of some of our senators.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
Well, yeah (4.00 / 1)
Specter's so old and cancer-ridden that I wouldn't be too depressed if he clawed his way to re-election because there's a decent chance he wouldn't live out his term anyways, so we wouldn't be stuck with him for a full six years.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
But we have a Governor's election coming this Nov. .. (0.00 / 0)
so we need Specter to lose in the primary ... otherwise .. as Chris can tell you .. there is a fair chance we'll have a Republican Governor come beginning of 2011
[ Parent ]
Bayh did this (4.00 / 1)
without telling the President or the leadership.

If there was any question over the lack of influence the leadership has with conservative Democrats, this should answer it.  

Maybe he wants to be (4.00 / 4)
Billy Tauzin's replacement. Guy like that's probably tired of getting out-earned by his wife.  
[ Parent ]
Well yeah (4.00 / 7)
although rules prevent him from being a lobbyist for a while.

But still, what influence does any progressive, a President, a leader, or an activist, have over a Senator who can easily say "Give me what I want or I retire and take a better paying job while you struggle to hold my seat with a candidate as or more conservative than me"

None.  

[ Parent ]
Well any Senator that's prone to retire can play that hostage game (0.00 / 0)
since they don't have to depend on the President's help for reelection.

But for those who are still in the game, they crave and want to hold on to power.  The President has control over party infrastructure and can sway candidate decisions.  Look how the President intervened in the PA and NY Senate races and then tell me that the President is helpless before the Almighty ConservaDem Senator.

Maybe in deep red states like NE he has no control.  But there's no excuse for his lack of action against Lieberman in CT, or Carper in DE.  Imagine how different things might be if Obama started shopping around for a primary candidate in CT, and if Senators started shunning Lieberman in every way possible instead of going on with their chumming around as usual.

[ Parent ]
Throw the bums out (0.00 / 0)
I thought Republicans had many more Senators up for reelection than Democrats.  I would have assumed that any incumbent would be in bad shape in today's economy, which would actually favor Democrats, majority or not.

Does any of you calculation take into effect anti incumbency feelings?

Well keep in mind (0.00 / 0)
no incumbent Republican is in jeopardy...David Vitter, the only incumbent Republican who is vulnerable and still running, expanded his lead...all other vulnerable Republicans have retired and look to be replaced with Republicans (no bum to throw out, so just go with the other party)

[ Parent ]
Richard Burr (R-NC) is probably the most vulnerable (4.00 / 1)
But as you say, the polls have shown his position improving as Dems have faded these last six months.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
ah right, NC isn't an open seat (4.00 / 1)
but yeah, Burr is surviving despite being a Republican because those who don't approve of either party are voting for him.  
[ Parent ]
Actually, the seat I'm worried about is WV (4.00 / 1)
The seats you were looking at look like they'll probably be safe. Pataki has shown no interest in running and same with Rossi. Boxer in CA may have a tough race, but she should pull through.

The one I'm really keeping my fingers crossed over is Robert Byrd's seat. I know it's not "polite" to talk about, but if there's a vacancy in that seat before November 2010 I would not give us good odds of holding the seat.  

why before november? (4.00 / 1)
will wv's governor change parties in november?
[ Parent ]
Special election (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
WV seems strongly Democratic (0.00 / 0)
69% of the House of Delegates, 76% of a state Senate, with apparent control of both houses since the '30s.  Hasn't sent a Republican to the US Senate since the 50s.  Everything I've heard is that people generally expect Byrd's replacement to be a Democrat.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
You could say the same about AR (4.00 / 1)
another state that's one way for federal elections and another way for state ones.

That said, I think Democrats can remain successful in WV (and maybe even carry it again someday at the presidential level) if they run strong economic liberals.

[ Parent ]
The best analogy (4.00 / 2)
to this election cycle is 1992.  I have long thought it was '82, but there are two differences:
1.  At the time inflation was considered almost as big a problem as unemployment.  The 1982 exit poll essentially split on whether unemployment or inflation was the bigger problem.  2.  While unemployment was higher in 1982 than now, it had been elevated for only about a year at election time.  However, clear progress had been made on inflation.  Some academic analysis has suggested that Republicans are more worried about inflation and budget deficits than unemployment.  The same analysis suggests for Democrats the prime metric for the economy is unemployment.

In contrast, in November of 1992 the recession had technically been over for a year, but unemployment had continued to rise. November of 1992 was a full 23 months after the recession had started. Most economic projections do not show unemployment falling much below 9.5 before November. In addition, Bush's tax increases had alienated a portion of the base in the same way that Obama has.

In this sense the Brown win reminds me of Wofford's win in late '91.  

On election day in 1992 Bush'a approval rating was in the mid'30's.  It would not surprise me to see Obama's ratings very similar in November.

Unless something changes we are going to lose the Senate.


Presidential election aside (4.00 / 1)
Republicans actually gained nine House seats in 1992 and the Senate remained the same...which has always led me to question whether or not Clinton would've won if Perot was not on the ballot.
[ Parent ]
Perot took more from Clinton (4.00 / 1)
that did Bush.  The exit polling is conclusive: Perot cut into Clinton's margin.  
[ Parent ]
Yeah I heard that alot (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure how much I believe it...and if it's true, that indicates a big issue with the Democratic Party. Perot's voters are not progressive and clearly voted Republican in Congressional races that year.

If they are the voters Democrats need to get a majority, then the Democrats have to be a centrist party to survive.

[ Parent ]
I'm confused by what you mean as "centrist" (0.00 / 0)
since Perot took an orthodox left stand against free trade. Please educate me on what you had in mind...
[ Parent ]
And an orthodox right stance on the deficit and spending (4.00 / 1)
which was his biggest issue.  
[ Parent ]
His overall theme was (4.00 / 1)
governing well, which, if that is antithetical to the "left", then to hell with the "left".
[ Parent ]
WTF does that mean? (0.00 / 0)
governing well? That couldn't be more vaguer Isn't everyone's theme "governing well?"
[ Parent ]
"Centrism" means nothing more than (0.00 / 0)
reducing political issues to a flat continuum of left to right, then finding a place in the middle.  Democratic "centrism" - I use it in quotes because as an ideology it stands for preferences on legislative procedure rather than the content of policy - is exactly why the GOP has defined our national political agenda for the past few decades.  
[ Parent ]
Dems need to be center-left (4.00 / 2)
Left on economics, center on other stuff as a compromise, the complete opposite of what corporate DLC Democrats propose.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
it would be nice if (4.00 / 3)
we had a leader

or a plan

oh, well

[ Parent ]
there is a plan, but it is mostly based on 2012, and saving (4.00 / 3)
obama. if congressional democrats are smart they will start to run against last year and distance themselves from it.  
[ Parent ]
What's to discuss? (0.00 / 0)
Of course Democrats will lose the Senate. We've earned it, fair and square. We won't regret losing Bayh, Spectre, Reid, or Dorgan. I'd like to say I'll miss Dodd and Kaufman, but I'm hard-pressed to say why I care about either of them.

If we lose Mikulski, Gillebrand, Murray, and/or Feingold, it'll be too bad, but I wont' be surprised. They only deserve to lose because they're bad politicians, not because they're bad Democrats.

Look for Republicans to gain their biggest majority in the Senate next year since 1994.

PS Blame it on Obama (4.00 / 1)
.
[ Parent ]
we most certainly (4.00 / 3)
will regret losing Dorgan.  He's been a very good populist Senator and the most progressive Senator we could ever expect from that state.
[ Parent ]
I like Dorgan & Feingold (4.00 / 3)
This is going to be interesting, because it looks like we will have divided government between two parties, both of whom have been completely discredited. And that, just as the stimulus runs out, and with a Fed that has an itchy trigger finger on interest rates. And with a stock market that has been reinflated without any reform. And an industrial base that is largely gone, and a whole country of people in too much debt, etc. etc.

Hold on to your ass, we've got a wild decade ahead of us!

[ Parent ]
The Senate picture could get even worse for Democrats | 74 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox