Battle for the U.S. Senate
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Charles E. Cook
Battle for the U.S. Senate
The battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives was over
before it even started, but the fight for control of the U.S. Senate is proving to
be a knock-down, drag-out affair that could easily go either way.
Control of the U.S. House is pretty much a settled affair. Republicans occupy
93 percent of the congressional districts that GOP presidential nominee Mitt
Romney carried in 2012, and Democrats hold 96 percent of the districts that
Obama won. As a result, there are very few “fish out of water,” or Republicans
sitting in Democratic-leaning districts or Democrats in GOP-tilting districts.
Yes, there are a large number of open House seats this cycle, but most are in
districts which safely belong to one side or the other. It would seem that the
next realistic shot Democrats have at winning control of the House would come
in 2022, after the next round of redistricting takes place in 2021. The 2018 and
2020 gubernatorial and state legislative elections will determine which party in
each state has the dominant hand in the redistricting process. Republicans had
it in most states in 2011, and Democrats want it badly in 2021.
The U.S. Senate is currently split between 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans,
meaning that the GOP needs a net gain of six seats to take the majority. Today,
the party’s effort to win those seats is getting some help from an almost perfect
storm of factors that are battering Democrats. First, the Senate map and
numbers of seats on the ballot both point to an enormously disproportionate
exposure to losses for Democrats. Second, this is a mid-term election, making
the timing less than ideal for the Democratic Party. In presidential election
years, the general election electorate is highly diverse, and largely resembles
the make-up of the country as a whole. In mid-term general elections,
however, voter turnout is generally older, whiter, more conservative, and more
Charles E. Cook, Jr. writes weekly columns for National Journal and CongressDaily AM,
published by the National Journal Group. He is a political analyst for NBC News as well as
editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report, a Washington-based nonpartisan
newsletter analyzing U.S. politics and elections.
Copyright # 2014 The Elliott School of International Affairs
The Washington Quarterly • 37:2 pp. 159–163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2014.926215
THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY & SUMMER 2014 159Charles E. Cook
Republican. Third, the national mood these days
The next realistic is particularly tough for Democrats. President
shot Democrats Obama’s job approval numbers and those for
the Affordable Care Act, his signature legis-
have at winning
lative achievement, are both “upside-down,”
control of the House or “underwater,” meaning that disapproval or
is in 2022. opposition is higher than approval or support.
This makes it more likely that the party holding
the White House will suffer second-term, mid-
term election losses. This political phenomenon is known as the “Six-Year
Itch,” and it has occurred in five out of the six such elections in the post-
World War II era.
The Map and Numbers
Every two years, roughly one-third of the Senate seats are on the ballot. The
make-up of each class is determined by the outcome of the Senate races six years
earlier. This year’s class of Senate seats was last up in 2008. That election
was defined by the aftermath of the financial crisis, the economy plummeting
into a recession, and a historic presidential election featuring the first
African-American nominee. These factors created a very favorable political
environment for Democrats that not only fueled President Obama’s victory over
Senator John McCain, but saw them score a net gain of eight Senate seats. As a
result, Democrats have 21 seats up in 2014, while Republicans have just 15. To
make matters more difficult for Democrats, seven of those 21 seats are in states
that Romney carried in 2012, while only one Republican seat is in a state
that Obama won. That seat, which is held by Senator Susan Collins in Maine,
appears to rest safely in the Republican column this year. Of the seven
Democratic seats in Romney states, six are in states that Romney won by a
whopping 14 points or more: Alaska (Sen. Mark Begich), Arkansas (Sen. Mark
Pryor), Louisiana (Sen. Mary Landrieu), and Montana (appointed Sen. John
Walsh), as well as open seats in South Dakota and West Virginia. The
remaining Democratic/Romney seat is in North Carolina (Sen. Kay Hagan),
where Romney won by just two points. Obama carried the state by a single point
in 2008.
At this point, it seems virtually impossible for Democrats to hold the open
seat in South Dakota, where Sen. Tim Johnson is retiring. It will be hard—but
not entirely impossible—for Democrats to hang on to the open seat in West
Virginia, where Sen. Jay Rockefeller is stepping down, and the seat in Montana,
where John Walsh, who had been the Democratic Lieutenant Governor before
being appointed to the vacant Senate seat by Governor Steve Bullock, is
160 THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY & SUMMER 2014Battle for the U.S. Senate seeking a full term. Assuming Republicans prevail in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia, they are half-way to their goal of picking up six seats, provided that they don’t lose any of their own seats. The next tier of seats includes five endangered Democratic incumbents: Sens. Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mark Udall in Colorado, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and Kay Hagan in North Carolina. Today, these are even-money contests, as is the open seat in Michigan where Sen. Carl Levin is retiring. Democrats have modest advantages in the open seat in Iowa, where Sen. Tom Harkin is retiring, and in New Hampshire, where Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is holding onto a real but not overwhelming advantage over former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. Senators Al Franken in Minnesota and Jeff Merkley in Oregon are currently well ahead of their likely Republican challengers, but either race has the potential to become competitive. On the other side of the ledger, Republicans have only two seats in real danger: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and an open seat in Georgia where Saxby Chambliss is retiring. Romney carried both states in 2012. McConnell is in a contest with 35-year-old Democratic Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, and polls show that the race is basically tied. McConnell’s challenge isn’t so much about partisanship or ideology as it is the danger that there are enough disgruntled voters, who would vote against any Congressional leader this year, to erase his 2008 three-point margin of victory. McConnell’s job approval ratings are upside-down, a testament to the fact that for all of his influence in Washington, there is a strong anti-Congress vote that puts his seat in real jeopardy. In Georgia, Democrats recruited a surprisingly strong candidate in Michelle Nunn, daughter of former conservative Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn and the chief executive officer of the Points of Light Foundation. Republicans are hosting a crowded primary that could produce a nominee with self-destructive tendencies; at least two candidates potentially fit that bill. If that happens, then Democrats have a real shot at winning this race. If, on the other hand, the Republican nominee isn’t polarizing and can appeal to voters outside the most conservative wing of the GOP, then the race is likely be close, but the seat probably remains in Republicans’ hands. Timing and the National Mood Beyond the very challenging numbers and map, Democrats also are disadvantaged by the fact that this is a mid-term election, when the electorate will generally be older, whiter, more conservative, and more Republican than in presidential years. The strong voter turnout that Democrats produced in President Obama’s initial and re-election campaigns THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY & SUMMER 2014 161
Charles E. Cook
was powered by strong showings of young, minority, and women (particularly
single, unmarried women) voters. While Obama’s presence on the ballot helped
Democrats enormously in 2008 and 2012, it is very hard to replicate that kind of
turnout when his name is not on the ballot, not to mention in a mid-term
election when turnout is generally lower. Having grown up during the Great
Depression and President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, older voters were once
solidly in Democrats’ column. The current generation of older voters is
instinctively less Democratic. As a result, the partisan balance in mid-term
elections has skewed much more to the advantage of Republicans in the absence
of countervailing forces like a recession in 1982 or the increasingly controversial
Iraq war in 2006.
The final force working against Democrats is the national mood. A strong
historic pattern exists in these second-term, mid-term elections for voters to get
restless and be more open to change. The president’s upside-down approval
numbers and highly polarizing and problematic issues like the Affordable Care
Act have created a potentially huge problem. To the extent that Obama’s and
the ACA’s numbers are bad nationally, they are much worse in many of the
states with top-tier Senate races like Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. In
Iowa, Michigan, and New Hampshire, Obama’s and the ACA’s numbers are
more or less in line with the national numbers. In the third-tier states like
Minnesota and Oregon, the Obama and ACA numbers are somewhat better
than the national numbers.
The bottom line is that Republicans have big advantages in three seats
that are currently held by Democrats. Six more Democratic seats appear to be
even-money propositions, and it is possible that
D emocratic anywhere from two to four more races could
become competitive as the election cycle
chances of retaining
progresses. Taken together, Democratic chances
their majority are of retaining their majority are 50-50 at best, and
50-50 at best, and very likely a bit worse. Some believe that
Democrats must pick up at least one of the two
very likely a bit
competitive seats currently held by Republicans,
worse. thus raising the bar of the number of Democratic
seats that the GOP must win from six to seven.
The words and actions of candidates matter,
though, as do campaigns and events that occur in the last few weeks before
Election Day. Thus, the die is hardly cast in this mid-term election.
While no one knows who will head up the Democratic and Republican
presidential tickets in 2016, or who the incumbent president will be in 2018,
there are some things we know about those years that are highly relevant in the
162 THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY & SUMMER 2014Battle for the U.S. Senate
battle over the U.S. Senate. While the numbers,
the map, and the mid-term election dynamics T he Senate will
work against Democrats in 2014, the situation will likely be teetering
reverse in 2016. Not only is 2016 a presidential
year, when the broader and more diverse electorate
on the edge for
will prove generally friendlier to Democrats than three consecutive
in mid-term years, but Republicans will have far election cycles.
more Senate seats on the ballot. The Senate class
up in 2016 was last on the ballot in 2010, which
was a good year for Republicans. As a result, the
GOP will be defending 24 seats compared to only ten for Democrats. Of the 24
Republican seats at risk in 2016, six are in states that Obama won, five of which
he carried by five points or more. Democrats won’t have to defend any seat in a
state that Romney won.
In 2018, the situation reverses itself when mid-term election turnout factors
will again work in favor of Republicans and against Democrats. Democrats will
have 25 seats up that year to only eight for Republicans. Five of the Democratic-
held seats are in states that Romney carried by nine points or more, while there
is only one Republican seat up in a state that Obama won.
Obviously, a lot can, and will, happen over the next four years, but it is
entirely plausible to suggest that Republicans could score the six- or seven-seat
net gain they need this year to win the majority. It’s equally as plausible that the
GOP could lose enough seats in 2016 to cost them that majority, only to regain
it in 2018 when mid-term election factors work in their favor. The chance that
the Senate will be teetering on the edge for three consecutive election cycles is
very real. Regardless of which party has the majority, neither party will have real
control of the chamber, which requires 60 or more seats given the rules and
dynamics of the Senate.
THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY & SUMMER 2014 163You can also read
