Democratic Held, Uncompetitive Democratic Locks (10): Arkansas (Pryor), Delaware (Biden), Illinois (Durbin), Iowa (Harkin), Massachusetts (Kerry), Michigan (Levin), Montana (Baucus), Rhode Island (Reed), South Dakota (Johnson), West Virginia (Rockerfeller)
*****
There are new polls from virtually every single state in this update. Here are the category changes:
Alaska upgrades from “Toss-up” to “Lean Democrat”
Colorado downgrades from “Likely Democrat” to “Lean Democrat”
Mississippi-B downgrades from “Toss-up” to “Lean Republican”
I have also tightened up the forecast a bit, so that I am no longer projecting Democratic pickups in an X-Y format. From now on, I will project an exact number every time. Right now, I project six, as Democrats win all five Republican held seats where they lead, sneak in one where they trail (either Oregon or Mississippi), and lose zero seats. In other words, virtually exactly the same thing as 2006.
* = Stevens now has a self-financing primary challenger. Let’s hope that Stevens wins, because after his indictment today, I have no idea how he can catch Begich. Stevens is too old to campaign, isn’t really raising any money, and now he is national news for his indictments. If he survives the primary, Alaska becomes the fifth more or less guaranteed Democratic pickup this cycle.
Democratic Held, Uncompetitive Democratic Locks (10): Arkansas (Pryor), Delaware (Biden), Illinois (Durbin), Iowa (Harkin), Massachusetts (Kerry), Michigan (Levin), Montana (Baucus), Rhode Island (Reed), South Dakota (Johnson), West Virginia (Rockerfeller)
*****
The new cash numbers for every campaign can be found here. Also, a new polls from Kansas showing incumbent Republican Roberts ahead by 27% move the state out of the competitive chart. There are also new polls from Oregon showing a tie, and from North Carolina, showing Dole ahead by 12%.
It appears that North Carolina is the longshot state that the DSCC has decided to focus upon, with an ad campaign of up to $6M set to hit the state. I think I like this targeting, since the choices are basically Texas or North Carolina or such a huge money dump. North Carolina is smaller than Texas, and Hagen is closer in terms of money than Cornyn. Also, North Carolina is closer to flipping blue than Texas, and we have very few female candidates for Senate this year. Further, Dole is the only anti-choice Republican woman in the Senate, and a high profile Republican politician. All around, I think it is a decent choice, even if I like Noriega better than Hagen.
Democratic Held, Uncompetitive Democratic Locks (10): Arkansas (Pryor), Delaware (Biden), Illinois (Durbin), Iowa (Harkin), Massachusetts (Kerry), Michigan (Levin), Montana (Baucus), Rhode Island (Reed), South Dakota (Johnson), West Virginia (Rockerfeller)
*****
As with the Presidential forecast, in an attempt to make the Senate forecast less sensitive to each new poll, I have added in several more polls. In this forecast, it has the unfortunate side effect of including numerous internal polls from both sides. That might lead to error in the averages but, hey, if each campaign had positive poll numbers, then both campaigns would release them.
Analysis in the extended entry.
There’s More…
:: (8
Comments, 207 words in story)
digg it
Democratic Held, Uncompetitive Democratic Locks (10): Arkansas (Pryor), Delaware (Biden), Illinois (Durbin), Iowa (Harkin), Massachusetts (Kerry), Michigan (Levin), Montana (Baucus), Rhode Island (Reed), South Dakota (Johnson), West Virginia (Rockerfeller)
*****
In the extended entry, I discuss targeting strategies, with an eye not only on picking up more seats, but also on building progressive power in the Senate.
There’s More…
:: (14
Comments, 442 words in story)
digg it
Democratic Held, Uncompetitive Democratic Locks (10): Arkansas (Pryor), Delaware (Biden), Illinois (Durbin), Iowa (Harkin), Massachusetts (Kerry), Michigan (Levin), Montana (Baucus), Rhode Island (Reed), South Dakota (Johnson), West Virginia (Rockerfeller)
****
For the first time in a couple of weeks, Democrats have slighted improved their position in the forecast. Colorado and New Hampshire look more “likely” than “lean” these days. Maine and Oregon look to have solidified their position is only “lean” Republican instead of “likely.” Also, Louisiana and New Jersey look better than they did two weeks ago.
In the extended entry, I look at some possible ways for the DSCC to utilize it’s large cash advantage on the NRSC.
There’s More…
:: (23
Comments, 495 words in story)
digg it
Democratic Held, Uncompetitive Democratic Locks (10): Arkansas (Pryor), Delaware (Biden), Illinois (Durbin), Iowa (Harkin), Massachusetts (Kerry), Michigan (Levin), Montana (Baucus), Rhode Island (Reed), South Dakota (Johnson), West Virginia (Rockerfeller)
****
I am trying hard to improve the look of the Senate forecast, so let me know what you think of the new table in the comments. Also, any suggestions you have for design and layout are also appreciated. I want to present the information as clearly as possible.
Analysis in the extended entry.
There’s More…
:: (32
Comments, 290 words in story)
digg it
Democratic Held, Uncompetitive Democratic Locks (10): Arkansas (Pryor), Delaware (Biden), Illinois (Durbin), Iowa (Harkin), Massachusetts (Kerry), Michigan (Levin), Montana (Baucus), Rhode Island (Reed), South Dakota (Johnson), West Virginia (Rockerfeller)
For the second consecutive week, Republicans gain some ground in the Senate forecast. The only two seats to move a tier are both downgrades for Democrats: New Jersey moved from “Likely Democratic” to “Lean Democratic,” while Texas moved from “Lean Republican,” to “Likely Republican.” The one positive note came from Alaska, where Mark Begich increased his lead, thus solidifying the seat at “Lean Democratic” instead of “Toss-up.”
More analysis in the extended entry.
There’s More…
:: (7
Comments, 280 words in story)
digg it
Not much has changed in the Senate picture over the past eight days. However, what little changed there was has generally been favorable for Republicans:
Alaska upgrades from “Toss-up” to “Lean Democratic”
Louisiana downgrades from “Likely Democratic” to “Lean Democratic”
Mississippi-B downgrades from “Toss-up” to “Lean Republican”
Nebraska downgrades from “Likely Republican” to “Uncompetitive”
Some smaller changes include Republicans increasing their polling advantages in Kentucky, Minnesota and Texas. Also, Republicans have slightly closed what is still an enormous gap in New Mexico. Overall, it is still a great forecast for Democrats, but the prospect of an 11-seat gain appears a bit dimmer than it was only one week ago.
Lately, I have been focused on a concept I have termed the “Progressive Window.” (Read here and here for more on this concept.) The Progressive Window refers to the six, brief, roughly once-in-a-generation opportunities when progressives have held enough power in government to pass real, strong, legislation. No window has been without its conservative moments, and some windows have been more successful than others in terms of the amount of legislation that passed. Still, collectively these six windows cover the time periods when virtually all extant, progressive, federal legislation passed into law. In order, these windows are, roughly, Reconstruction, the early twentieth century, FDR’s presidency, the JFK / LBJ sixties, the Carter administration, and the first two years of the Clinton administration.
Right now, the remarkable Senate Forecast indicates that we are headed toward a possible seventh Progressive Window that, if we hold the Presidency and succeed in governing, should last from 2009-2014. This new, seventh window is possible because one very realistic electoral outcome for 2008 is a Barack Obama presidency, a Nancy Pelosi-led U.S. House with 260 Democrats, and a U.S. Senate that breaks 60-38-2, with Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders as the “2.” However, given the general failure of the previous two progressive windows, which Matthew Yglesias lamented last week, and the perceived ineffectiveness of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in 2007-2008, as expressed in the comments last night by Dr. Anonymous, some have expressed legitimate doubts about the value and efficacy of another Progressive Window. In what ways will this seventh window be different than our previous failures, which stretch from the Democratic-instigated Vietnam War until the present?
The key way it could be different is that there has not been a non-southern, non-conservative, Democratic working majority since 1938. The previous three Democratic Presidents, LBJ, Carter and Clinton, were all southerners with clear conservative leanings. LBJ escalated in Vietnam, Carter fought with a Democratic Congress over expanding the Great Society, and Clinton was one of the founders of the DLC. Further, with the brief exception of the 1935-1938 period, every Democratic majority in Congress has been dependant upon conservative, southern Democrats. In 1993-1994, for example, Democrats held 57 seats in the Senate, but 12 of those seats came from the 11 states that once formed the Confederacy. In other words, Democrats held 45 non-southern seats. Much the same can also be said of the composition of the Senate during the Carter and JFK / LBJ windows. While Democrats held wide majorities in the Senate during those twelve years, and in fact held over 60 seats in all but two of those years, never once did they hold a majority that was independent of the votes of conservative, southern Democrats. Every time, Democrats held about 44-46 seats outside of the eleven Confederacy states.
That could all change during the seventh window. Not only would we have an African-American, creative class, academic as President, and not only would we have a San Francisco, Progressive Caucus, woman as Speaker of the House with an 80 vote majority, but for the first time since the 1930’s we would also have a non-southern, Democratic, outright majority in the Senate. If we win all of the eleven most favorable seats in the current Senate Forecast, Republicans would still have a 13-9 majority in the 11 states that once formed the Confederacy, but Democrats would hold a 51-25-2 advantage in the other 39 states. That is an outright, non-southern, non-Lieberman Democratic Senate majority, which has only previously been accomplished during FDR’s first two terms and Reconstruction. And even the nine southern Dems that we would have, while conservative, would be far to the left of the old southern Dems. Senators like Kay Hagen, Rick Noriega, Bill Nelson, and Mark Warner will all certainly be moderates, but they ain’t Dixiecrats.
When we look for historical analogues, we tend to turn back to events that have occurred during our lifetimes. As such, the failures of the previous three Progressive Windows–LBJ, Carter and the first two years of Clinton–are the analogues that immediately come to mind. However, if we do as well as we should in the 2008 elections, the closer analogue for the potential of the seventh window is actually the progressive reforms of the New Deal era. The analogy is still not perfect, but it works because the 2009-2014 window should be closer to 1930’s levels of progressive electoral power than to the early 1960’s, the mid-1970’s, or the early 1990’s.
We are used to ineffective Democratic representation in D.C. which seems easily stymied, or all too willing to go along with, conservatives. However, the 2008 elections present us with an opportunity to move away from that paradigm very quickly. These elections can give progressives power in D.C. that we haven’t had since the 1930’s. If that isn’t something to get excited about, and to work our asses off to achieve, I don’t know what is. Of course we should always remain wary, and of course we will still have huge fights ahead of us even if we pull off these electoral victories, but this is still a once in a generation opportunity. We can’t afford to squander it.
Somehow, the Senate Forecast has gotten even better for Democrats. We have gotten closer in Minnesota and Oregon, pulled ahead in Mississippi, and with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell falling behind in a new poll, it is a full-blown Republican apocalypse.
Right now, Democrats lead in five Republican-held seats, and are within 5% or less in another six seats. That presents Democrats with eleven targets that, any other election year, would be considered top-tier challenges. And this is in an environment where the DSCC has a cash on hand advantage of more than $20 million. Sixty Democrats in the Senate, and a filibuster-proof trifecta, is now entirely realistic.
Two weeks ago I counted down the list of top apocalypses. I think that a Republican Apocalypse should actually have been #1. And, if I were to DJ the Republican Apocalypse, somehow I think Psychobilly Freakout by the Reverend Horton Heat just works:
And why is there a Republican Apocalypse? The answer is really, really simple:
The underlying reason that so many Republican seats are at risk is that fewer and fewer Americans consider themselves to be Republicans.
The extended primary will probably net us three or four Senate seats, at least.
* = Pending competitive primary, current primary leader used as placeholder
Dem Cash % = The Democratic cash on hand % relative to the Republican
Update: Oh yeah, Trent Lott left, too. I guess he could see the apocalyse coming. Also, there are only eleven seats where we are either winning, or within 5%, in the polling average. This is earlier in the morning than I usually post. 🙂
Projected Democratic Net Gain: 5-7 It is hard to believe, but right now the 2008 forecast is actually a significant improvement on the 2006 Senate picture, when Democrats picked up six seats. Right now, Democrats already look on track to pick up six seats, and there is plenty of time and plenty of potential targets to run up the score even more. A ten-seat pickup, leading to a filibuster proof, non-Lieberman majority of 60, is not impossible at all. Republicans have only one realistic pickup opportunity, in Louisiana, and even there incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu leads by 14% with a massive cash advantage. The following tables contain detailed information by state, sorted alphabetically within competitiveness tiers:
* = Pending competitive primary, current primary leader used as placeholder
Dem Cash % = The Democratic cash on hand % relative to the Republican
