New polling shows that the June 8thh primaries could shake up the 2010 elections as much as Tuesday's primaries already did.
California Senate, Republican primary and general election Two new primary polls in California show former Representative Tom Campbell's lead over Carly Fiorina shrinking in the Republican Senate primary. M4 shows Campbell up 33%--28% (with 15% for Chuck DeVore), while PPIC shows Fiorina ahead 25%--23% (with DeVore at 16%). This puts the 15-day average at 30.3% for Campbell, 25.7% for Fiorina, and 15.3% for DeVore.
A Fionia win--or, for that matter, a shock DeVore win--would certainly be good news for incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer. In the general election, Boxer now leads Campbell by 3.5% (87% current win %), Fiorina by 8% (98% current win %), and Devore by 8.5% (again, 98% current win %). Given Boxer's 72% current win % in yesterday's Senate forecast update, this improve the overall Democratic seante position by 0.13 seats (adjusting for slight error I made in Connecticut-should have been 98% win % for Blumenthal, not 100%). Democrats are now forecast at 52.20 seats, their best total since Evan Bayh's retirement announcement.
California 36th Congressional district, Democratic primary Another interesting poll on a June 8th primary comes from the Marcy Winograd campaign. The poll, which was not released in full (not a good sign), shows incumbent Blue Dog Jane Harman at only 43% support. This conflicts significantly with an internal Harman poll released earlier in the week, showing her at 58%.
My takeways from these polls are that Harman is strongly favored in the campaign, but Winograd can score over 40%, improving on her 2010 performance. To win, she is going to need a huge improvement in name ID and favorables over the final three weeks, combined with very low Democratic turnout on June 8th. Given the relative lack of major statewide Democratic primaries in California compared to Republicans, this isn't impossible. But it is a huge longshot.
Nevada Senate, Republican primary Another big primary to watch on June 8th int eh Republican Senate primary in Nevada. In the wake of her Chickens for Checkups fiasco, one-time Republican frontrunner Sue Lowden has crashed in the polls. The 18% lead she enjoyed from late February through early April has been cut to only 5% by wingnut fave Sharron Angle. Harry Reid is competitive with Sharron Angle in the general election, trailing by only 5.5%. If Angle were to win the Republican primary, Reid might be able to hang onto his seat.
Arkansas Senate, Democratic primary runoff Finally, to toot our own horn for a bit, the first poll on the runoff for the Democratic nomination in Arkansas Senate was first released here on Open Left yesterday by Democracy for America. It showed Bill Halter leading incumbent Blanche Lincoln 48%--46%. With Lincoln receiving less than 45% of the vote in the primary on Tuesday, there its a good bet that a a wave of anti-incumbent incumbent sentiment will lead to her defeat on June 8th.
****
Overall, while perhaps not quite as exciting as the May 18th primaries, June 8th seems ready to keep the anti-incumbent, anti-establishment buzz going strong.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
The wave of May primaries has improved the Senate picture for Democrats. In the case of all six major primary campaigns this month, Democrats either secured, or were not eliminated from securing, their most favorable general election matchup. In most cases, that also resulted in the more progressive--or at least less establishment--candidate winning the Democratic nomination.
Overall, Democrats are still stuck at 52 seats in the forecast. Still, they have improved by nearly half a seat over the past two months, and have greatly increased the number of campaigns where they are within striking distance. Democrats can realistically win all 12 of the first 20 campaigns, from Nevada on up, in full Senate chart I provide in the extended entry. Additionally, last night's results suggest that John McCain is in real trouble in Arizona, making for a 13th winnable, competitive Senate seat. If Democrats were to somehow sweep all 13, then they would actually gain a seat in the Senate, recapturing their 60-vote supermajority.
Still, a 60-seat supermajority is not realistic. What is realistic is winning 54-56 seats, and then enacting filibuster and other procedural reform on the first day the Senate is in session for 2011. That would possibly make it easier to pass progressive legislation through the Senate than it has been in 2009-2010.
With a (slowly) improving economic and electoral climate, and with Democratic Senators are holding more hearings on how to enact filibuster reform today, this is an achievable goal. Not only Democrats are either leading, or within 2.5%, of enough campaigns right now to win 55 Senate seats, but even Robert Byrd is now coming out in favor of filibuster reform:
There are rays of hope for both Democrats and progressives right now.
Senate forecast overview
Dems*
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Incumbent party safe
6
10
Sub-total
47
33
Current polling
5.07
14.93
Projected total
52
48
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
In the extended entry, check out the full chart of the 20 Senate seats that might switch partisan control.
Two new polls this morning show Joe Sestak within striking distance of Arlen Specter in the May 18th Pennsylvania primary. Quinnipiac puts Specter up 8%, down from 21% last month. Also, the Muhlenberg daily tracker of the campaign puts Specter up 4%, down from 9% yesterday.
The 15-day simple mean on the campaign now puts Specter up by 7.0%, while the 30-day pegs it at 8.5%. Specter's lead was in the high teens for most of the campaign, soo Sestak is surging. I always thought this campaign would be decided by 6% one way or the other, and it looks like that will happen.
The trend in Pennsylvania fits in with the main narrative of the 2010 primary season: the unusually large number of incumbent Senators who are in serious danger of being defeated for renomination. No less than five Senators face this threat, with I equivalent to the number of incumbent Senators who were defeated for re-nomination over the past 20 years combined (see here and here). Here are those five campaigns, in chronological order (using 30-day, simple means):
May 8th: Utah (two polls)
Lee: 34.0%
Bennett (i): 19.0%
Bridgewater: 18.5%
(Primary is on June 22nd, but caucus convention this Saturday will determine two Republicans who make ballot. A minimum of 40% is needed to make primary ballot)
May 18th: Arkansas (three polls)
Lincoln (i): 42.0%
Halter: 33.0%
Other: 7.7%
May 18th: Pennsylvania (four polls)
Specter (i): 45.3%
Sestak: 36.8%
August 10th: Colorado (one poll)
Bennet (i): 40.0%
Romanoff: 34.0%
August 24th: Arizona (three polls)
McCain (i):49.0%
Hayworth: 35.0%
McCain is actually the safest of the five incumbents at this point, but his primary is also the furthest away. This will give Hayworth ample time to make up ground.
Also, as multiple commenters on Open Left have noted, Specter has already lost a primary. His party switch last year handed the Republican nomination to Pat Toomey.
Finally, cue the wailing and gnashing of teeth over "extremism." Village pundits galore will complain about how these primary challenges are destroying our glorious moderates, which in turn will keep the Senate from ratifying the deficit commission and handing out more Wall Street bailouts. Cutting Social Security while propping up stock-based retirement portfolios seems, in the end, to really be what bi-partisanship is supposed to accomplish in Washington, D.C. Senators would do it, to, if only they didn't have to answer to those dirty people who actually believed in stuff.
Rossi is still considering a run against Murray. If Rossi were to enter the campaign, it would start precisely even, according to the four most recent polls.
As of last Tuesday, Senate polling currently projected to 51.83 Senate seats for Democrats after the November election. However, that projection was based on a 100% chance of victory in Washington State. While this poll does not change that victory percentage right now (no other poll has the campaign so close), it does suggest that this could be a difficult seat for Democrats to hold. This is especially the case if Rossi runs.
With Washington state in play, Republicans would have an outside chance of winning the Senate. It would require winning 17 of the 18 campaigns listed here. While this is certainly a tall order, it is not impossible. The Senate is no longer absolutely secure for Democrats in the 2010 elections.
Yesterday we learned, based on new research from Nate Silver, that the difference between Rasmussen polling and all other polling in this electoral cycle is not based on Rasmussen's likely voter screen. In apples to apples comparisons, Rasmussen's likely voter polls, and their polls of all adults, also show a roughly 6% "house effect" in favor of Republicans compared to other likely voter polls and other polls of all adults. Further, the 2000 election, when Rasmussen's main media sponsor was was the conspiratorial conservative site World Net Daily, offers a precedent for Rasmussen having such a lagre, pro-GOP "house effect."
So, what would the Senate forecast look like if Rasmussen polls were excluded from the Senate averages? This morning, I whipped up some numbers to check. For the sake of comparison, I also included a Senate forecast based on all polls, and based on the exclusion of Research 2000 polls, which have shown the largest pro-Democratic "house effect" in the 2009-2010 cycle. Here are the results, looking only at current primary campaign leaders:
The 18 Senate seats that might switch partisan control The chart below looks only at current primary campaign leaders. Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe," and not listed.
Methodology * =- Arizona has been included since McCain might not win the primary. If McCain were to win the primary, it would not be listed among the competitive seats
Here are the projected Democratic seats in each scenario:
No Rasmussen: 53.30
All polls: 51.83
No Research 2000: 51.29
As we can see from these results, excluding Rasmussen does change the Senate forecast significantly in favor of Democrats. Democrats gain 1.47 seats. In the 17 Senate races where there is non-Rasmussen polling, Democrats gain a mean of 3.1% in the polling averages without Rasmussen, and a median of 1.6%.
Further, the exclusion of Research 2000 does not show the same level of swing in the polling averages. Without the Daily Kos polls, Republicans gain 0.54 seats. The mean gain is 1.4% in the polling averages, and the median gain is 1.2%.
The bottom line is that Rasmussen's newfound "house effect" is skewing the polling averages in favor of Republicans. Further, Research 2000 is not the equivalent of Rasmussen, with the latter placing a heavier thumb on the scale. This means that the Senate picture is likely somewhere between the "all polls" and "no Rasmussen" averages, which project Democrats at 52 and 53 seats respectively.
This is very good news for Democrats. While a Senate projection of 52-53 seats is only marginally better than a projection of 51-52 seats, underneath the overall seat projection numbers a wide range of campaigns become more viable. Seats like Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky and North Carolina--which Rasmussen polling indicates are real blowouts--now look competitive. Further, the core competitive seats of Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania all look much more winnable. Republicans actually only have 41 solid seats without Rasmussen polling, which theoretically makes it possible that Democrats will maintain their large advantage in the Senate after 2010.
Despite all this, for now, I will continue to weight all polls equally. My methodology is based on empirical research of previous polling averages, and I will not change it until I have new research that indicates accounting for "House effects" results in more accurate forecasting results. In the meantime, it is my hope that non-Rasmussen pollsters will start producing more polls, and that Rasmussen's newly exaggerated "house effect" will return to its minimal 2004-2009 levels. I would much rather this be resolved simply through the addition of more uncontroversial data into the system, rather than placing my own thumb on the scales when interpreting Rasmussen polls.
The short-term, 24-hour political news cycle is focusing on tax day and tea parties. However, no matter the focus on conservative protests, the big news today is that Democrats will control the White House until at least January 3rd, 2013.
This news came today when Tommy Thompson announced he would not challenge Russ Feingold for Senate in Wisconsin. Some polling, mainly conducted by right-wing source, had shown that Thompson would have made the race extremely competitive. He might have even started out with a lead, in fact. However, now that Thompson is not running, it will be extremely difficult for the little-known Republicans, who trail Feingold by huge margins, to pull off the upset.
For Republicans to win control of the Senate before 2013 now, they would have to not only sweep all currently competitive races, but also pick off a victory in a seat where they currently trail by double-digits and will be massively outspent. Not only is winning every single competitive campaign extremely difficult, but the polling for those campaigns is currently dominated by Rasmussen, which is flooding the zone with polls. In reality, the current polling outlook for competitive Senate campaigns is probably more favorable to Democrats than my forecast suggests.
And, as I noted, they still need at least one extreme longshot on top of every single one of those competitive campaigns to take control. That just isn't going to happen.
Democrats will not be in control forever, and will likely lose the Senate in either 2012 or, at the latest, 2014. But they will stay in control for a while. They have a decent shot at holding the House in 2010, too. With an improving economic picture, they might actually fare pretty well in the 2012 elections.
This might be the most active year for Senate primaries, ever. Unrest among the base of both parties, combined with 11 open seats, 2 appointed Senators who are running for election, and one more who switched parties, has made for an extremely busy Senate primary calendar. Here is a look at the very long list of recent polling in all 17 major contested Senate primaries this year, in chronological order by the date of the primary.
The most recent general election polling on these campaigns can be found here. The definition of a "major" primary is not strict. The criteria I used were, loosely, whether the primary was within 25%, or whether it was connected to a general election campaign within 18.5%.
Clear sailing for Boozman in Arkansas: Disappointingly, John Boozman is the heavy favorite in the Republican primary. He leads his closest challenger by 32%. This is unfortunate, because Bill Halter would have been immediately competitive with anyone other than Bozzman in the general election if he is able to knock off Blanche Lincoln. Halter trails Boozman by 13.7% across the last three polls in the campaign.
More Republican primaries: Eleven of the seventeen primaries listed here are Republican, and only six are Democratic. This is mainly the result of there being more Democratic-held seats, thus leaving more races without a pre-exiting Republicans favorite.
Democrats challenging more incumbents: For once, Democrats are actually running more serious primary challenges against incumbents (3--Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Colorado) than Republicans (2--Arizona and Utah). There is a difference between these challenges, though. The three Democratic primaries are all against Senators who were not in the Democratic caucus after the 2008 elections, while both of the Republican primaries are against long-term incumbents.
Only four campaigns within single digits: Even though there are a lot of Senate primaries, right now only four have a single-digit margin: North Carolina, Ohio, California and Colorado. However, primary campaigns fluctuate a lot more, both during the campaign and from the final poll to the final result, than general election campaigns. So, even though most of these are not very close right now, expect that to change as we approach the various elections days.
Lots of hot, Senate primary action this year. Going to be a very busy 2010 election season.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
Some big, and very positive Senate news for Democrats over the past couple of days.
In New York, Goerge Pataki will not run, which hands the seat to Kirsten Gillibrand.
In Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson will officially announce whether he will run tomorrow. Currently, sources indicate that he is very unlikely to run.
All of this means that, unless Dino Rossi runs in Washington, there is virtually no chance Republicans will win control of the Senate after the 2010 elections. And the Republican already running in Washington is not wrong when he says it is likely too late for Rossi to jump in.
Additionally, Democrats have actually improved their standing from the most recent rankings on March 24th. The states with the most improvement are Arkansas, Colorado and Ohio, all of which are now winnable. That is espcially the case in Arkansas if the general election matchup is Bill Halter versus either Gilbert Baker or Curtis Coleman.
The best case sceanrio for Democrats right now is to have 57 seats after the 2010 elections (sweeping Washington through Arkansas on the chart below). For Republicans, the best case sceanrio is s 50-50 split (Sweeping California on down in the chart below), with Vice-President Biden handing control to Democrats via a tiebreaker.
The quick overview of the Senate forecast is below, In the extended entry, you can find the complete chart, featuring all primary campaigns and possible general election matchups.
Senate forecast overview
Dems*
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
7
11
Sub-total
48
34
Current polling
3.78
14.22
Projected total
52
48
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 18 Senate seats that might switch partisan control The chart below looks only at current primary campaign leaders. Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe," and not listed. Democrats: 3.78 (4)
Republicans: 14.22 (14)
Methodology * =- Arizona has been included since McCain might not win the primary. If McCain were to win the primary, it would not be listed among the competitive seats
Full Senate chart, including all primaries and possible general election matchups, can be found in the extended entry
Ever since I conducted new research into polling averages for the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections that showed simply averaging all polls equally produced the most accurate forecasting results, that favorite online hobby of election watchers--debunking individual polls--started to seem pointless to me.
Still, whenever I produce a new Senate forecast, this hasn't stopped people from pointing out that the results would be very different if Rasmussen, and a couple other right-wing polls, were not included. As such, simply for the sake of hypotheticals, I have produced a Rassmussen-free Senate forecast. The forecast also does not include the right-wing Franklin and Marashall poll in Pennsylvania, the WPRI poll in Wisconsin, or campaign-funded polls. Additionally, the most favorable, and still plausible general election matchup for Democrats according to current polling is the one featured in this chart:
This is not a methodology that I actually endorse. But, I am putting it up for a sense of perspective, and due to popular demand:
Senate forecast overview
Dems*
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
8
12
Sub-total
49
35
Current polling
5.92
10.08
Projected total
55
45
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 16 Senate seats that might switch partisan control (Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe," and not listed) Democrats: 5.92 (6)
Republicans: 10.08 (10)
This is a much better outlook for Democrats than the actual Senate forecast. Democrats are 3.28 seats better off when Rasmussen, and a few other right-wing polls, are removed from the averages. Further, with the exception of Nevada (which is actually worse for Harry Reid) and New Hampshire (which shows no difference), Democrats improve their position in every single one of the competitive Senate campaigns. It even becomes conceivable, with a sweep of Ohio on up, for Democrats to not lose any seats at all, and stay at 59 Senators for the 111th Congress.
That sure would be nice. However, I think we would be deluding ourselves if we actually believed the current political environment was this rosy for Democrats. If this Rassmussen-free forecast is taken seriously at all, it should only be taken as the best possible scenario for Democrats right now. Further, it should only be considered alongside the worst-case scenario, which actually posits a 51-49 Republican Senate majority (or worse, with party switches).
Those are the two outer edges of possibility. The reality, and likely outcome, is in between: a 6-8 seat Democratic loss.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
Senate forecast overview
Dems*
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
8
12
Sub-total
49
35
Current polling
2.64
13.36
Projected total
52
48
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 16 Senate seats that might switch partisan control (Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe," and not listed) Democrats: 2.64 (3)
Republicans: 13.36 (13)
A good baseline to see the impact of HCR There are a lot of different theories on whether passing health insurance reform will help or hurt Democrats politically. I say we just use these numbers as a baseline, and see where we are in another two months. My guess is that it actually won't have much of an impact one way or the other. The basic parameters of the election are already set, and they revolve around the economy, not health care.
Not much change since Bayh's retirement The Senate forecast has shifted by less than one-tenth of one seat since Evan Bayh's retirement announcement in mid-February. that is one reason why I don't expect to see much change as a result of HCR passage. The debate on HCR didn't change it much.
Brunner and Romanoff more electable? In Ohio, Jennifer Brunner is performing better in the general election than Democratic primary frontrunner Lee Fisher. In Colorado, Andrew Romanoff is performing better in the general election than Democratic primary frontrunner Michael Bennet. The Democratic establishment might well be backing the wrong candidates in those campaigns, especially given that neither Fisher nor Bennet lead their primaries by very much.
Complete chart, including all primary campaigns and general election variations, can be found in the extended entry. The chart above only shows current primary campaign leaders.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
Senate forecast overview
Dems*
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
8
12
Sub-total
49
35
Current polling
2.67
13.33
Projected total
52
48
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 16 Senate seats that might switch partisan control Republicans would have to win all 16 of these campaigns to take control of the Senate (Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe," and not listed) Democrats: 2.67 (3)
Republicans: 13.33 (13)
In an attempt to make the Senate forecast a little easier on the eyes, I have produced a chart showing the polling averages only for the current frontrunners for the Democratic and Republican nominations. The full chart, which includes all of the primary campaigns and potential general election matchups, can be found in the extended entry. the methodology and notes to these charts can be found there, too
As disastrous as this looks, it is still possible for Democrats to have a more effective Senate majority in 2011 than they have right now. With filibuster reform pending, a 52-seat Democratic majority might actually be stronger than the current 59-seat incarnation. If the Democratic electoral situation improves, which could happen if the jobless rate declines and if Rasmussen polls become a smaller percentage of the averages, Democrats could keep a 54 or 55 seat majority. If combined with filibuster reform, a majority of that size would make Mary Lanrieu, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman irrelevant.
There is still hope for change yet. More info in the extended entry.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
****
Due to upward ticks in Illinois and Indiana, Democrats have slightly improved their overall stand this week. They are still at only 52 seats, though, and not much ahead of 51.
Still haven't hit the bottom, but we are close to it. The situation could still get worse in Wisconsin, Missouri and California, even to the point where control of the Senate becomes a question mark.
Senate forecast overview
Dems*
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
8
12
Sub-total
49
35
Current polling
2.65
13.35
Projected total
52
48
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 16 Senate seats that might switch partisan control (Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe," and not listed) Democrats: 2.65 (3)
Republicans: 13.35 (13)
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
****
Evan's Bayh's departure has dropped Democrats down nearly a full seat in the forecast. At this point, Democrats are barely projected to even reach 52 seats.
Republicans are still not in a position to retake the Senate, fortunately. However, as I mentioned earlier in the week, if George Pataki (NY), Rino Rossi (WA) or Tommy Thompson (WI) were to enter the fray, then they would be.
An we are nowhere close to the bottom, either. Even if the senate picture improves a bit for Democrats in 2010, from 2012-2014 Democrats must defend 43 of the 66 Senate seats up for election. Given that Barack Obama will still be President in 2012, and that the economy will still probably stink, Democrats are going to the party in charge that voters blame for at least the 2012 elections (ala Republicans in 2008, even though Democrats controlled the House). In other words, we are not going to hit the bottom until sometime around 2013-2015.
This continued plummet is just so damn frustrating. If we had passed, as Matthew Yglesias wrote, what progressives had wanted:
- A $1.2 trillion stimulus.
- The forcible breakup of large banks.
- Universal health care with a public option linked to Medicare rates.
- An economy-wide cap on carbon emissions, with the permits auctioned.
- Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
- A path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
- An exit strategy from Afghanistan.
- An end to special exemption of military spending from fiscal discipline.
- An independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
- The Employee Free Choice Act.
If all that had passed, plus D.C. representation, then really it wouldn't be so bad. For one thing, the political situation probably be a bit better (because the economy would be a bit better and activists would be really pumped). For another thing, at that point I would just say fine, you can have the Senate back--we made a big difference that will change the country for a generation.
But none of that list passed. Instead, we are looked at a huge wasted opportunity, and a massive electoral disaster to boot. Great, just great.
The complete Senate forecast chart can be found in the extended entry.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) will not seek a 3rd term in the Senate next year, according to a Dem source, handing Dems yet another setback as they struggle to salvage their damaged ship.
Bayh, elected statewide 5 times, will become the 5th Senate Dem not to seek another term. His decision to step aside , first reported by The Fix and confirmed to Hotline OnCall, creates an open seat in IN, a usually-red state that broke the mold in '08 by voting narrowly for Pres. Obama.
Bayh actually had a pretty solid lead on his various Republican challengers, so this is something of a surprise. It is also another blow to Democratic Senate hopes in November. Bayh, for all the frustration he caused progressives, was part of a well-known family institution in Indiana, and as such was the best Democratic bet to keep the seat.
It is going to be much more difficult for Democrats to keep this seat, now. Given that Bayh was currently listed at a 98% chance to retain the seat, it will also push the projected Democratic Senate total for 2011 down to only 52 seats.
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox