Jun 28, 2004

Time on the Senate

by Cliopatria

Thanks to my colleague Ralph Luker for the heads-up on the Senate preview released this morning by Time, which is a little more optimistic than I was yesterday, particularly with regard to South Carolina, regarding the Democrats' chance for a Senate majority. Given that Fritz Hollings is the only Democrat to win a SC Senate election since 1960, I'm still skeptical of the Dems chances there. If I had to bet right now, I would say that the GOP will pick up SC and GA, the Dems will pick up IL and CO (where a poll this morning showed the Democratic candidtae, state Attorney General Ken Salazar, defeating both GOP candidates), and LA and AK too close to call. If both those states went Democratic, the result would be a 50-50 Senate--a Democratic majority if Kerry wins, all eyes on possible party-switchers John McCain or Lincoln Chafee if Bush is re-elected.

Three caveats, though:

1.) In every important Senate election cycle since 1980 (1980, 1986, 1994, 2000, 2002), most of the close races have broken for one party. So if we're in late October with six tight races, they're highly unlikely to split 3-3.

2.) In every cycle since 1996, there has been a sleeper race (Chuck Hagel in 1996 and Saxby Chambliss in 2002 for the GOP, John Edwards in 1998 and Maria Cantwell in 2000 for the Dems) that didn't look like it was going to be a pickup for the other party. The early frontrunner for the sleeper of 2004? Patty Murray's seat in Washington. If Murray, or any other Dem incumbent, loses, the party has little chance of taking back the Senate.

3.) There's a pretty good chance that we won't know which party controls the Senate after Election Night, because of Louisiana's peculiar election law, which pits all candidates, regardless of party, on the ballot on Election Day, with the top two, regardless of party, moving on to an early Dec. runoff if no one gets 50%. This is a legacy of convicted former governor Edwin Edwards, who pushed it through the legislature in the 1970s in the hopes of eliminating Republican candidates in the first round. Currently, in LA, there's one solid Republican (Congressman David Vitter) and three Democrats running for John Breaux's seat; if the Democrats retain the seat, they almost certainly are going to require the December runoff to do so. There was a runoff in LA in 2002, in which incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu held on.

More Comments:

Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 7/4/2004

If you search back every two years for TIME's Senate race articles during general election summers, you will find they have consistently overestimated the strength of the Democrats, probably by an average of three seats per election. (This is, of course, TIME post Henry Luce). So, as a rule of thumb, you can take TIME's best guess and adjust by a net plus three for the GOP. Whether it is their attempt at self-fulfilling prophesy, a weak grounding in the election conditions, or more likely just their staff's native bias, I have no idea.
My own prediction is Repubicans will lose one seat they now hold in Illinois, and keep all the others,including Lisa Murkowski in Alaska and Brad Carson in Oklahoma, as well as Coors/Schaeffer in Colorado, and the worm, Specter, in Pennsylvania. Democrats will lose at lest three seats they now hold, and probably four, among the states of SC, GA, FL, NC, and LA. You mentioned your creeping terror about Patty Murray in Washington. There is also question about Tom Daschle in South Dakota, and there is always a chance Harry Reid will fall 350 votes short in Nevada. Those are additional wild cards where the GOP has nothing to lose. Boxer, Leahy, Dodd, Inouye, Lincoln, Wyden, Feingold, Dorgan, Schumer, Baye, and Milkulski appear supersafe for the Democrats, which is only 11 of the 19 states they currently hold. Bennett, Shelby, Bond, Railsback, Crapo, Grassley, Gregg, McCain, Voinovich, and Bunning appear supersafe for the Republicans, which is 10 of the 15 they currently hold. So, at this juncture a net gain of two or three for the Republicans seems a logical guess. It could be a net gain of four or five for the GOP, of course, or as bad for them as a No Change. It would take an earthquake for the Democrats to gain control, however, and you should lie down until that idea goes away.