As we just learned, it’s easier for Republicans to pick up House seats in blue and purple districts during midterm elections because turnout is low and the people who don’t turn out come disproportionately from the Democrats’ base. Conversely, Democrats have the best chance to pick up purple districts in presidential years, when voter interest is highest. But the Senate is different.
It’s hard to pick up a Senate seat in Mississippi or Utah or Wyoming in a midterm year. But, in a presidential year, it is nearly impossible. In 2008, for example, the Democrats held several incumbents’ seats in McCain states (Baucus, Pryor, Landrieu, and Rockefeller) but only picked up one Senate seat in a McCain state (Begich). And, we won the Alaska seat only because the incumbent had recently been indicted. In 2012, the Republicans will only be defending ten seats. Here they are:
John Barrasso in Wyoming
Scott Brown in Massachusetts
Bob Corker in Tennessee
John Ensign in Nevada
Orrin Hatch in Utah
Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas
Jon Kyl in Arizona
Richard Lugar in Indiana
Olympia Snowe in Maine
Roger Wicker in Mississippi
Obama actually won four of these states (Indiana, Massachusetts, Maine, and Nevada). But the six states he lost, he lost very badly. When I look at this list, I see only two seats that are obviously competitive: Massachusetts and Nevada. We need to win those two seats. I do not see an obvious second tier. I think Jon Kyl is the next most vulnerable incumbent. The Republicans’ 2008 numbers in Arizona were inflated because John McCain was at the top of the ticket. Consider that in the Southwest, in 2008, McCain lost (compared to Bush in 2004) 9% of the vote in Utah, 8% in New Mexico, and 7% in Colorado and Nevada. But he only lost one percent in Arizona. Now consider that we just held our Senate seats in Colorado and Nevada. I know we’ve seen some crazy shit out of the white population of Arizona over the last two years, but that’s largely because they know that demographics are about to turn their state blue. Another factor in my thinking is that Jon Kyl is a member of the Republican leadership and, as Harry Reid learned, being a leader in Congress when the public is angry is not good for your reelection prospects.
So, we need to make Arizona a major focus of our 2012 Senate elections strategy. But we can’t just settle for these three seats because, even if we pick them up, we will probably still lose the Senate. We have to roll the dice and hope we get lucky. Now, Tennessee and Wyoming are extremely inhospitable places for Democrats to run for statewide office and this is especially true in a presidential year. But, fortunately, we have two former governors who were extremely popular. Neither of them could be termed ‘progressives’ but these seats are valuable and control of the Senate is at stake. So, all efforts should be made to recruit Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming and Phil Bredesen of Tennessee to run for Senate. I don’t think anyone else could make these races competitive and force the RNSC to play defense.
As for the remainder of seats on the list, we have to anticipate that Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Richard Lugar, and Olympia Snowe will receive teabagging opponents. If Snowe survives her challenge, she will be unbeatable by any Democratic opponent. That’s why we should try to flip her now and if she won’t caucus with us then we should recruit a candidate on the assumption that they will not face Snowe, but some Joe Miller-clone. We don’t want to flip Hutchison, Hatch, or Lugar, but we should similarly assume that they will be defeated by someone with all the senatorial qualities of a Ken Buck or Sharron Angle. We can’t beat Lugar, but we can beat his lunatic replacement. In Utah, we should try to convince Jim Matheson to run, on the assumption that he won’t be facing Hatch.
We have to be very aggressive if we want to hold the Senate. We have to take chances and be in position if things fall our way. It should be remembered that Ronald Reagan won Massachusetts in 1984, just two years after taking a shellacking in the 1982 midterms. Assume nothing, and plan for victory. Just not in Mississippi.
they would be wise to listen, Booman. we need to field serious candidates in all states, though.
IF Snowe returns to the Senate, it will NOT be as a Republican. I can make that prediction without any thought of being wrong.
Agree with all of that, but I would just make it simpler: Heavily recruit 4 good dem candidates for MA, NV, AZ and ME. The prospect of having a tough dem opponent in a presidential year when ME will go dem is not something SNowe wants, especially if she’s going to have to move to the right to fight off the tea baggers. In order to prevent Snowe from moving right for the primary, then left for the general, you need a viable dem candidate to keep her honest. This seat should be represented by someone who caucuses with the dems (whether its one of ours, or snowe as an independent)- sitting around and hoping that things just play out that way is stupid (or maybe just an extension of the obama “the world as we find it” playbook). Lets get the grassroots and the white house working together on this to make this seat ours, one way or another.
Part of me would prefer Lugar in the Senate to some Dem Nelson/Bayh-clone. Lugar is one of the last vestiges of sane Republicanism in the Senate, and he gives Obama a lot of establishment cover on foreign policy. But obviously either Lugar or a conservaDem would be infinitely preferable to a lunatic.
I have to agree with you. the sane Republicans are dwindling rapidly
The “lunatic replacements” will be less lunatic appearing and will have their messaging honed, by the powers that be, to be more widely accepted. They won’t make the “I’m not a witch – pay with chickens” type of mistake again. We should be ready for this, they self destructed and didn’t gain control of the Senate so they will adjust to more clandestine, but still wacky, candidates and the electorate will eat it up. You’re right, we are so screwed.
pay with chickens was a republican not tea party candidate
Make Republicans spend beaucoups of money defending Mississippi. Roger Wicker is the more “moderate” one of the two Mississippi Senators. Send folks there to register more Democratic voters. And have the DOJ making sure that they are attacked. Turn the national spotlight on Mississippi again and point out which national and global corporations are there keeping it is Third World status.
The Wyoming population is around 600,000 – figure 175,000 voters to win both the House and the Senate. Put big backing into ensuring the Freudenthal can win. Hit Barrasso’s self-interested attitude on health care reform hard.
Kyl and Ensign are vulnerable, but it’s gonna take a bit of a push in Arizona to get Kyl out of there. The strategy against Ensign is his corruption (not his affair but his payoffs).
Against Kyl, you need to swing the elder vote against him — throw him on the third rail of American politics. Arizona is another area where voter registration and DOJ protection could force Republicans to spend defensively.
Leave Lugar alone (if he runs). He at least is sane on foreign policy. Start issue ads against “those extremists opposing Lugar who don’t understand that the START treaty gives America more national security” and the explain how that is true.
The toughest one to unseat really is going to be Corker for a variety of reasons. He’s nutty enough not to draw a Tea Party challenger (assuming that the GOP hasn’t canned that strategy), but projects a reasonable persona that makes it difficult to make attacks stick.
Betting that Orrin Hatch retires. But Utah is still a lock for Republicans. Unless Harry Reid has some secret way to get Mormons to vote for Democrats.
Betting that Kay Bailey draws some nutty opposition from the Rick Perry wing of the Texas GOP. Also, watch to see if Perry starts having presidential ambitions. There are enough Democrats in Texas to elect a Democratic Senator if they all vote. This is another state to draw in beaucoups of GOP money to defend. And voter registration with DOJ protection could help do that.
What is clear is that to press any of these supposed “safe seats” it will take efforts way outside the Democratic Party structures, who will be “alligators up to their earlobes” defending the large number of Democratic seats.
There were two things that Karl Rove got right. (1) Do the math. and (2) Hit them at their strong point.
Rove implemented the second item in 2000 by making Bush seem ordinary against Gore’s geekishness (which he conveniently got the media to emphasize). In 2004 it was a frontal attack on John Kerry’s war service.
I think that in 2012 progressive Democrats should give Karl and his buddies a huge taste of their own medicine.
And you know darn well that if you were DSCC chairman you would be worried as hell about Ben Nelson. And ready to dump huge sums into Nebraska to save his sorry butt.
If Lugar gets a primary challenge from the tea baggers, then we should find a viable progressive to keep him honest as well. no free rides for anyone. i agree, we want to keep Lugar, but only if he doesn’t pull a mccain and start going reactionary just to stay in power, which is entirely possible. No free rides in any state outside of the confederacy.
Why should the DSCC give money to Ben Nelson or Kent Conrad? If they do, it should only come with strict conditions attached.
Because incumbent Democratic Senators fund the DSCC. That’s why. It’s a “re-elect the incumbents and then if there’s any left over support a challenger” committee.
But Conrad and Nelson seem like they’d be more at home with the Pukes. And both stab the party in the back repeatedly.
You don’t understand, Calvin. The DSCC took donations from them for six years. Now they want their donations back. It’s not about ideology. It’s about the Senate club looking out for its own.
And they know that the Republicans would primary them at the first opportunity if they switched. Plus they would have to go back to the bottom of the seniority ladder.
Inside the Beltway, it’s not about principles or policy or anything but ensuring incumbents get re-elected.
If the Congress were serious about cutting entitlements, they would set their salaries to the median family income for the previous year (currently $49,977), eliminate subsidies for Congressional health care plans and 401(k) plans. Cancel retirement for all former members of Congress and former Presidents. And reduce subsidies of retirement for members of the Judiciary (I would go for no subsidies for the Supreme Court, but that’s just me).
The Congress has gone from an institution that taxpayers supported because it was committed to finding peace and prosperity to an institution that seeks only taxpayer support and delivers nothing in return.
I think we’re just a little too early to make AZ really competitive. By the time Kyl runs next for re-election in 2018 he’ll be in big trouble. But I don’t think the Hispanic tide is quite large enough yet to get an outcome there.
So I agree that there are really only 3 seats to shoot for — but my list is MA, NV, and ME. I think we have at least as good a chance at getting ME for the Dems as we do NV.
Olympia Snowe is not gonna want to get Cristed. She could run in the GOP primary to be a loyalist/purist, and then figure on winning a write-in campaign like Murkowski (which she probably could do), but that’s a lot dicier than just switching parties early, picking up insitutional support, and only having to run against one serious opponent (instead of two). Now going that route she could get Specter’d, but she is much, much more popular in her state than Snarlin’ Arlen was here in PA, so I really doubt that would happen.
If we’re trying to be optimistic…the two New England seats (MA and ME) should actually be favored to switch (depending on what the next 2 years bring). We already have a 3 seat cushion thanks to the Tea Party. That means we could lose 5 seats and still maintain control of the chamber (assuming Obama gets re-elected against whichever GOP pygmy is nominated). Plus we will very likely get rid of Lieberman, and Ben Nelson will be one of the lost, so the Dem caucus might actually look better.
Here’s what’s really ironic: the GOP got a bunch of House seats in this current wave that they won’t be able to hold (just as we couldn’t hold all the seats from 2006 and 2008), in part because the political climate will change, and in part because the quality of those elected is so poor in many cases. But the vagaries of luck foretell major trouble for the Senate. Assuming Obama campaigns like he did in 2008 against weak competition, there is actually a pretty fair chance that we simultaneously take back the House but lose the Senate.
Slightly off topic but we should get a better Democrat in CT as well. Lieberman should be toast in 2012.
Kay Bailey may step aside here in Texas and retire to avoid having the tea party lunatics primary her and suffer another defeat.
The bench for Democrats here in Texas is so weak that even if some Louie Gohmert was running instad of KBH, the lunatic would win.
Demographics have been “about” to turn Arizona blue for a decade.
The “lunatic replacements” will be less lunatic appearing and will have their messaging honed, by the powers that be, to be more widely accepted. They won’t make the “I’m not a witch – pay with chickens” type of mistake again. We should be ready for this, they self destructed and didn’t gain control of the Senate so they will adjust to more clandestine, but still wacky, candidates and the electorate will eat it up. You’re right, we are so screwed.