First Read has a mini-analysis of the 2010 House races. It’s not overly interesting, but it does correctly note that the only president since World War Two not lose House seats in their first post-inauguration election was George W. Bush (he picked up two). And we all know that 9/11 explains that anomaly. The House has a lot of potential volatility, and most of the movement potential is in the Republican’s direction.
However, the Senate is different. After the 2010 election, all 100 senate seats will have been tested in a post-Katrina environment. Republicans in the 2010 class were lucky to avoid voter-scrutiny in the 2006 and 2008 elections. The environment in 2010 is bound to be more favorable. But, new Gallup Polling shows trouble for most Republicans running for state-wide office. There are only six states in the country that are currently self-identifying with the GOP: Utah +23, Wyoming +21, Idaho +13, Alaska +11, Alabama +6, and Mississippi +1. This is good news for several Republicans who are up for reelection next year (Bob Bennett of Utah, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Richard Shelby of Alabama). But it is bad news for several other Republicans who might consider themselves safe.
John McCain might be shocked to learn that the Democrats have a two-point advantage in Arizona (although he should be grateful that his state is tied for ninth-strongest in GOP support). Johnny Isakson of Georgia can’t be comforted to learn that Georgia has moved from competitive in 2008 to Lean Dem today. Chuck Grassley is personally popular and wields enough seniority to make him fairly safe. But Iowa is polling as Solid Democratic, meaning an over 10 percent advantage. The Republicans are going to be defending four open seats in Solid Democratic states (Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio). Richard Burr of North Carolina will join Grassley in competing for reelection in a Solid Democratic state. More disturbing for the Republicans is the fact that they have to defend seats in Florida (Open) and Oklahoma (Inhofe), and those states are now polling in the Lean Dem category. You read that right. Oklahoma is polling Lean Dem. I don’t know what to make of that. David Vitter’s Louisiana is also polling Lean Dem.
To consider the scope of the problem, let’s flip it around.
…a total of eight states…are competitive in terms of party identification, with none showing a party advantage of greater than two points. These include Mississippi (+1 Republican), North Dakota and Nebraska (even), and Kansas, Arizona, Texas, South Carolina, and Montana (all +2 Democratic).
What this means is that only one Democratic senator is facing a competitive electorate (Byron Dorgan of North Dakota). But even Jim DeMint of South Carolina is going to be facing a hostile electorate (and he might get a decent opponent).
Because of special elections, 37% of the Senate will be up for reelection in 2010. Nineteen of those seats are currently held by Republicans. Let’s break this out.
Republican Held Seats (19):
Solid Republican= 3
Lean Republican= 1
Competitive= 4
Lean Democratic= 5
Solid Democratic= 6
Democratic Held Seats (18):
Solid Republican= 0
Lean Republican= 0
Competitive= 1 (Byron Dorgan)
Lean Democratic= 2 (Harry Reid, Michael Bennet)
Solid Democratic=15
Now, I have two pieces of warning. First, the Republicans may be few but they have much higher turnout. Thus, a party affiliation advantage alone does not make a state Democratic (see Oklahoma). The advantage must be substantial. Second, senators who have a lot of seniority (Grassley, Inhofe, McCain) are often retained on that basis alone. Regardless of personal faults, Arlen Specter can do a lot more for Pennsylvania as a high ranking member of the Appropriations Committee than Joe Sestak could do as one vote out of a hundred. People value seniority and it can overwhelm political trends and party affiliation. So, despite the numbers above, it’s not true that there are fifteen vulnerable Republican senators up for election next year. It’s more like half of that, and to be truly vulnerable they need to be facing a well-financed opponent.
But the senate will almost certainly tilt further to the left no matter what happens in the House.
