A cloud of doom and glooming has been building over the past month or more about the Dems chances heading into the 2010 midterms, and the cloud burst yesterday with the retirement announcements of incumbent Dem Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. Every observer of congressional politics is on the case.
The smart ones, like Kathryn Pearson of the University of Minnesota, quickly note that the two retirements represent something close to a wash (in terms of partisan advantage). The NoDak seat immediately becomes a Republican leaner or better, especially if Gov. John Hoeven gets in the race, which borders on inevitable. (Although Hoeven might have been able to beat Dorgan anyway.) But the Dodd retirement substantially increases the Dems chances of holding onto that seat, since Dodd had been polling like a dead man walking throughout 2009 and the new likely Dem nominee, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is polling 30 points ahead of all of his likely Repub opponents.
Bottom line on Dodd, said Pearson, is that his announcement is smart and well-timed both for the sake of his own dignified retirement and for the good of the party.
The Dems will likely lose a substantial number of House seats at the midterm, as the party of a first-term president almost always does at the midterm, Pearson said.
The Senate is harder to pigeonhole and less responsive to national trends. The NYTimes ran a very helpful map/graphic of the current rankings of the Senate races. The tone of the accompanying story seemed mostly on board with the sky-falling-on-Dems hypothesis but the map is really inconsistent with the Dem-gloom, at least where the Senate races are concerned.
It reflects at least one enduring but seldom-mentioned strength the Dems have heading into the 2010 Senate races. Although Dems currently control 60 percent of the Senate, they have to defend only 19 of the 37 seats that will be on the ballot in November. So they start the election with a 41-22 lead in the Senate among seats that aren't up this year.
The Times says that nine of the 19 Dem seats that are up are safe for the Dems and 10 of the 18 Repub seats that are up are safe for the Repubs. If they all stay safe, that means the Dems would have 50-33 Senate advantage before you get to any of the 18 seats that are more less in play.
Of those that are in play, but in which the Times sees a likely winner, two (including the Connecticut seat) are likely to go Dem, and two (including the Dorgan seat in North Dakota) are likely to go Repub. If you count the "likelys," you have a 52-35 Dem Senate heading into the leaners and the toss-ups.
The leaners and the toss-ups
The Times says four seats are leaning Dem and three seats lean Repub. If both parties get their leaners, it's 56-38.
At present, the Times identifies six races as toss-ups, three of them now held by Dems and three by Repubs. The six toss-ups, for the truly obsessed, are the open seats Delaware and Illinois, now held by Dems, the open seats in Ohio, New Hampshire and Missouri now held by Republicans. If the parties split the six toss-ups, you would end up with a 59-41 Senate in the next term.
There are a whole passel of ifs there, but those reasonable hypotheses suggest that it's way to soon to start assuming that the Repubs stand on the brink of a big gain the Senate.
The analysts tend to say that the toss-ups usually don't get split but blow mostly one way or the other based on the political wind prevailing at the very end of the campaign, which suggests that the Republicans could get up into the mid-40s or that the Dems could actually hang onto their filibuster-proof 60-member majority.
A last few things to bear in mind: The prevailing wind right now is blowing at the backs of the Repubs. But as with everything else I've been discussing above, it would be easy to overstate the strength of that wind. Gallup recently analyzed all of its 2009 polling and concluded that, for the first time in three years less than 50 percent of Americans say they are Democrats or Dem-leaners. But look at the actual data. From a seven-year peak in 2008 when 51.5 of Americans said they were Democrats or Dem-leaners, the 2009 figure was down to 49.0. That still compared with just 40.7 percent who said they were Republicans or Repub leaners.
What think?
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
35 comments
-
32 comments
-
23 comments
-
21 comments
-
20 comments
Comments (24)
Your Gallup link is old and busted.
The new Gallup hotness from today:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideolog...
Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group
PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.
21% Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.
But the real bad news for Dems:
"Uptick owing largely to more independents calling themselves conservative."
IF the dems pass the health care bill, and the increases in health insurance and other costs kick in immediately, while most of the benefits have to wait for years, with opponents gloomily broadcasting what a disaster it is...
And IF unemployment stays at or near 10%...
And IF after the homebuyer credits expire the housing market tanks again...
And IF added stimulus adds to the deficits we face...
And IF commercial real estate foreclosures push the banks down again, and the stock market with them...
And IF real progress is not evident in Afghanistan and terrorist attacks from elsewhere persist...
THEN ten months from now the picture will be quite gloomy for dems, and perhaps for incumbents of every stripe.
But IF the health care bill fails, and is replaced with lesser buy helpful changes in insurance regulations...
And IF new unemployment claims continue to fall, and the rate sinks to more like 8%...
And IF the homebuyer market stabilizes and new construction appears to be on the rise...
And IF an added stimulus is not needed, and rising incomes increase fed tax receipts and the deficit appears to be shrinking...
And IF the widely anticipated flood of commercial real estate foreclosures fails to materialize...
And IF measurable progress is evident in Afghanistan and combat deaths are not on the rise...
Then ten months from now will see a much better picture for the dems.
And a mix of these factors will produce a mixed result.
But that's a whole lot of IF's, and it's much too early to tell, of course.
Erick:
That was an excellent look at the numbers, and, as you point out, there are a lot of possibilities. But one thing appears certain, the Democrats will definitely lose the filibuster-proof majority they squandered this session.
Several points are vital to predicting what may happen in the fall elections:
1) what is the average retirement rate for Democrats?
2) how many members of each party have announced their retirements?
3) how is the money situation going?
1) Average retirement rate from the House is about 16 Democrats...I'm not sure about the number from the Senate
2) As it is now, there are more retiring Republicans than Democrats in BOTH the House (14 Republicans retiring, 10 Democrats) and the Senate (6 Republicans retiring, 5 Democrats).
3) Both the RNC and the RNCC are doing rather badly money-wise, whereas the DNC and DNCC are doing quite well.
My guess: Republicans will gain 25 House seats and 4 Senate seats. I'd also point out right now that predicting the election results at this point of time is about as reliable as predicting the gender of your first great-great-great-great grandchild. The political environment right now is poor for Democrats, but we aren't voting right now, are we?
Nice approach to provide both the big picture & cut to the chase regarding how many seats are really in play.
//"Pfft"//
//"Ain't polls great, Eric?"//
//"If one comes out with news that gets your dauber down, all you have to do is wait until one pops up to float your boat again."//
Thomas Swift 10/07/09
Open question to the Dem well wishers, what sort of thing or things need to happen to change the slide? Obviously ten months is a long time but things are certainly trending for big Rep pickups. What would turn that around?
Can one consider oneself to have "made it" when people remember and quote ones opinions?
If so, I'm deeply and humbly honored.
Here's to hoping that Richard's dauber doesn't dip too low before things improve for the Democrat party again in 10 or 20 years. ;-)
Sorry Eric, I know better than to add the "k" to your name.
John--
You've got more IF's than Kipling ;-)
A few more conservatives would do Obama some good. It could be the impetus to bring him back towards the center where he once campaigned from. Historically we run in cycles, and this is but another example of that.
The Dems have the same problem they always have, two years after taking power they have nothing to show for it. They'll be going into the mid-term election and by and large the average American isn't going to be able to point to anything and "Well the Democrats did THIS" Even the health care bill has been a disaster because after campaigning on a plan, turns out they had no plan, and spent a year waiting for the health care industry to write one for them. In the meantime they lost the American people along the way.
This crap about moving to the "middle" ignores the fact that the "middle" is an artificial construct resulting from distorted landscape that's a product of righ leaning compromise. You would think the Blue Dogs would have taught Democrats the lesson of beating Republicans by becoming Republicans but alas it's not to be. The biggest mistake Democrats have made is concluding that Bill Clinton taught them how to win elections. Clinton didn't win because he moved to the middle blah blah, he won because he ran again Republican duds. Obama and Franken won because they promised a progressive agenda. A lot of people like me rolled the dice and hoped they'd follow through on that promise. What I got was a bait and switch, again. I may get fooled again sometime but not this year. The Democrats just don't get it, like the Republicans, they actually have a base. Unlike they Republicans, they betray their base every time. They seem to be more worried about losing the Tea Party vote than they are about losing my vote... and so it goes.
Paul, if you think that the Democratic party is courting Tea Party votes...well, man, that blows my mind. You might be right that they've angered enough left leaning voters to suffer some base erosion come November. But if you really think they're going after the Tea Party vote, I, uh, think you're a bit mistaken.
Peder,
A little hyperbole now then can be fun. The question is whether or not they can hold their majority. My point is as far I can tell it doesn't matter because we gave them a majority and they didn't do anything with it. Instead of saving forclosed homes and creating jobs they bailed out the financial industry, and for a follow up instead of building a health care system they bailed out the health insurance industry. I've seen em do this before, I had hoped it would different this time. Keep in mind, it's not that I expect them win every progressive battle, but they didn't even fight them. They wrote off single payer, public options before Obama even made his health care speech. Courting the Tea Party may be an exaggeration but instead of demanding the health plan he campaigned on all I heard from Obama was how badly he wanted Republicans to vote for a plan. Not only was that a waste of time, it resulted in a joke of a health reform. There's a lot of nice stuff like making science based policy and stuff, but the Dems don't need a majority to do that, Obama could have done that regardless.
So the question is, and the Democrats never seem to get this, the question is whether or not there are enough votes like mine to win and lose elections? I guess we'll find out, but I have one word for you... "Nader".
Paul U--
As Nader proved, it's much easier to be a spoiler than to win an election. Do you really think that Gore would have been no better than Bush?
I can remember the same arguments in 1968 -- Humphrey would have been no different than Nixon.
Reality check time!
And if you listened carefully two years ago, Obama was very vague about what he would actually do -- mostly hope and atmospherics.
The disappointed liberals who backed him should have paid more attention then.
He was actually the least progressive of the three leading candidates.
Paul B (#16):
Which is probably why he won.
And the three leading candidates were selected by the corporate media a bare month into the campaign. They (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) were given all the time they needed or wanted to respond to debate questions, while folks like Biden and Dodd were somewhat limited -- and Kucinich was ignored or cut off, probably because he's anti-war and pro-peace, pro-single payer health care, pro-workers and the poor, anti-excess corporate power, et cetera.
We coulda had a real progressive and real change, but apparently that would never do.
If Obama wants to avoid losing seats in 2010, he needs to remember who elected him and why instead of trying to please his corporate and militaristic advisors and right-wing members of either party in Congress.
//Reality check time!
I love it when you guys pretend to have monopoly on reality... and then you lose.
Obama said we had to have a public option, that was the difference between his plan and Clinton's plan. He repeated it often, and pointed out that forcing people to buy insurance wasn't the solution because insurance wasn't the problem, affordability was the problem. Near as I can tell, we just got Clinton's plan instead of Obama's, and he didn't even fight for his own plan. After the primaries he kept saying it.
John I (#17): Unquestionably.
Paul U (#19): What did I lose?
I voted for Obama despite my reservations because the alternative was not acceptable.
Voting for Nader in 2000 and 2004 was functionally equivalent to voting for Bush.
The reality is that there was and is a difference.
Mr. Brandon,
What did you lose? Elections. You ended up with Bush because you failed to get the progressive vote, you ran to the "middle" and you lost, both times. By the way, I voted for Gore, and Kerry, I'm the one that threw my vote away there because despite the fact I voted for a guys who supported the war and had no health are plans, etc. they still lost. If I'd voted for Nader again, like I had in the past, we'd got the same outcome but I would have preserved my dignity.
Then I voted for Obama because, unlike Clinton, he said he wanted a public option in the health care plan. He said this repeatedly and said it often, he repeated it in his big health care address to congress. I don't expect the guy I vote for to win all the time, and don't expect them to deliver everything they promise, but I expect them to fight for what they promise. Obama gave up the public plan as fast as he could. He said he was going to save mortgages, then he put the guys who engineered the crises in charge of the crises and bailed out the banks, oh yeah, he shamed them. It was a flat out bait and switch.
And now you've lost my vote, and your going to start losing elections again. Democrats had an opportunity to enact a hugely popular public policy that would have guaranteed trust, support, and electoral victory for years to come. Instead, they literally turned it into a lose-lose situation. The Democrats are the only political party in the world that could've pulled that off. They had momentum, support, a popular and charismatic president, and the majority in congress, and they blew it, like always.
I want to vote for Democrats, I want the Democrats to win elections, but I'm not going to vote Democrats because I'm less afraid of them than I am the other guy. I'm not going to support a party that isn't moving the country in the right direction. You gotta give people something to vote for, this is so basic and you don't get it. Obama was a machine, and he's a talented politician, his victory was amazing in a lot of ways. But a big part of his victory, like Clinton before him, was a Republican implosion. People didn't suddenly fall in love with the Democrats, the Republicans were so incredibly horrible, that's why support has evaporated so quickly.
I (the progressive community) keep telling Democrats what they need to do to get our votes, and they either respond with a bait and switch, or by telling us how silly we are for voting for someone else. I guess we'll see how that works out for you. For the record, start acting like liberals, with a populist agenda, and stop acting like corporate lacky Republican-lite hacks, and you'll build momentum, loyalty, and trust, and win elections. The only thing in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead armadillo's.
Paul--
I'd very much like to have a government that's far more progressive than the one we have now.
However, I see no evidence that this is what the majority of voters want. Unless you can come up with a way to convince another ten percent or so of conservative (that's what the people labeled 'moderate' are) voters to support progressive policies there's no point in demanding that the Democratic party adopt a more progressive platform.
BTW -- Obama won partly because a lot of people were willing to campaign for him because they thought he was progressive, but far more of his support came from people who were disgusted by Bush/Cheney.
One can make a good case that Obama won DESPITE a progressive image.
//there's no point in demanding that the Democratic party adopt a more progressive platform.
There ya go, this is how Democrats talk themselves out of being a liberal party. It's not realpolitic, it's lack of imagination.