Charlie Cook is a decent analyst but he seems to have modestly Republican preferences that sometimes shade his analysis.
Come November, Senate Democrats’ 60-vote supermajority is toast. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how Democrats could lose the Senate this year. But they have a 50-50 chance of ending up with fewer than 55 seats in the next Congress.
He’s giving even money that the Republicans will net five Senate seats in the 2010 midterm elections. But how does he get there? He doesn’t say, so we have to imagine.
Update [2010-1-8 11:44:3 by BooMan]: Posting without coffee. I now realize that the math is wrong in this piece because Cook is actually giving even money that the GOP will net six seats, not five. So, adjust what I wrote accordingly.
The first assumption he must be making is that the Democrats will not be winning any of the open seats left by retiring Republicans (Florida, Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, and New Hampshire). He also assumes that David Vitter will overcome his diaper problems and defeat a strong challenge from Blue Dog Charlie Melanchon. He assumes that Richard Burr will be the first North Carolinian to win reelection to the CLASS III seat since Sam Ervin did it in 1968. In other words, there will be no pickups for the Democrats, only losses. But where will those five losses come from? Certainly not Connecticut, where Dick Blumenthal has a formidable lead in the polls.
Well, we can start in North Dakota where present governor John Hoeven will probably take over Byron Dorgan’s seat. That’s one pickup. Perhaps Blanche Lincoln will lose down in Arkansas, as she is showing some serious vulnerability in early polls. That’s two. Harry Reid has looked weak, too, in polling data, although he has many advantages (from money, to clout, to unions) that make his reelection likely. We’re starting to go out on a limb here giving even money, but we’ll call Harry Reid ‘number three.’
So, where is Charlie Cook going to come up with two more seats the Democrats are going to lose? Maybe he is looking at Delaware where Rep. Michael Castle is running for the vice-president’s old seat. It is anticipated that his opponent will be Biden’s son, Beau, fresh back from his tour in Iraq. Early polling has shown a toss-up in this race, but we’ll make it the fourth seat.
So, to get to the precipice of five seats, we’ve posited that the Dems will lose every open contest, plus lose the Majority Leader, the vice-president’s old seat, and the seat down in Clinton Country. And Cook wants to give us even money on that happening, plus (wait! there’s more!) he’s willing to toss in another seat. I don’t know where you go to get another toss-up, but you could go to Barack Obama’s old seat in Illinois. Or, you could look at Michael Bennet in Colorado (but he doesn’t really have much of an opponent right now). Maybe Specter/Sestak will lose to Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania or Barbara Boxer will get ousted in California. Maybe. But you want to give even money on those things happening?
It’s actually not at all unlikely that the Democrats will win some of the open Senate races. Robin Carnahan is a strong candidate in Missouri, to give just one example. And the Republican infighting in Florida is a sight to see. Who knows, if that contest becomes about voting for the candidate they electorate hates the least, the Democrats could pull off a shocker. I don’t think Vitter is a lock, or Burr. I don’t see any Democratic senators losing except perhaps Lincoln in Arkansas. To me, the midterms are still a wash, with the most likely scenario being a pick up of no more than two seats by either party. That would be a saner 50-50 bet.
