Tag: 2010 Elections

Nate Silver is handicapping the 2010 U.S. Senate races at Fivethirtyeight.com and had this to say about Iowa’s seat, held by five-term incumbent Chuck Grassley:

Grassley will be 77 in 2010 and could retire, in which case the race probably leans Democrat. Absent a retirement, a kamikaze mission by someone like Tom Vilsack against the popular incumbent is unlikely to succeed.

Over at Iowa Independent, Chase Martyn begs to differ:

Grassley has not had a truly difficult race in some time.  […]

In 2004, Art Small […] received no institutional support from the Democratic party, which essentially conceded the race before it began.

In 2010, the picture is very different.  While Grassley’s approval rating remains high, almost everything else has changed.

Democrats have begun to truly dominate Iowa’s political scene. […]

What happens if former Gov. Tom Vilsack jumps into the race for Senate?

Fending off Vilsack’s challenge, Grassley could face deficits in both fundraising and name identification for the first time in decades. […]

Far from a ‘kamikaze mission,’ as Silver calls it, the emerging conventional wisdom around here is that Vilsack would have a real chance against Grassley in 2010.

Perhaps “kamikaze mission” is too strong a phrase, but we need to acknowledge that Tom Vilsack or any other Democrat would be a serious underdog against Grassley. Yes, Iowa now has far more registered Democrats than Republicans (about 106,000 more, last I heard), but Grassley has always benefited from a strong crossover vote.

Grassley will face substantial pressure not to retire in 2010, in part because several other Republican-held Senate seats are likely to be vulnerable. Furthermore, Iowa Republicans hoping to unseat Governor Chet Culver would love to be able to focus their spending on that campaign, rather than divide their resources between the gubernatorial race and defending an open Senate seat.

As I see it, four factors could push Grassley toward retirement:

1. A health problem (God forbid).

2. An unpleasant 2009 in the Senate minority. Grassley loves his job and has gotten along well with Montana Senator Max Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. But what if the enlarged and emboldened Democratic majority doesn’t need to cut as many deals with Grassley as Baucus has done in the past?

3. Deteriorating relations between Grassley and the social conservatives who dominate the Republican Party of Iowa. For background on this tension, click here or click here.

4. A top-tier Democratic challenger who can raise a lot of money and has free time to campaign.

And that brings me to the paradox in the title of this post. Clearly Grassley’s retirement would give Democrats the best chance (some might say only chance) to win this seat. However, Grassley is more likely to retire if Tom Vilsack or another major-league Democrat jumps in now, instead of waiting a year or longer to see whether the incumbent will decide to step down for some other reason.

Challenging Grassley means embarking on long and exhausting uphill battle. But putting Grassley on notice soon that Democrats will not give him a pass is one of the few things we could do to improve the odds that he will retire.

That’s what everybody’s sayin’.

Public Policy Polling takes another look at the 2010 Senate race (7/30-8/2, likely voters):

Bob Graham (D): 51

Mel Martinez (R-inc): 31

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D): 38

Mel Martinez (R-inc): 37

(MoE: ±3.5%)

These are match-ups that you helped pick, although I’m not sure if there’s anyone who really thinks that Bob Graham would bust out of his retirement in order to run again for the Senate. Still, it would be a romp if he was willing.

A late June poll from PPP showed Martinez tied with Dem Rep. Robert Wexler and trailing Florida CFO Alex Sink by six points. It looks like this one will be a top tier race in 2010.

One of the coolest things about Public Policy Polling is that they periodically ask their readers to submit names of possible candidates to test in 2010 Senate match-up polls. Over at their blog, PPP is asking for names to test against GOP crumb-bum Sen. Mel Martinez in a new poll to be conducted later this week.

Last month, they matched up Martinez with Florida CFO Alex Sink and Congressman Robert Wexler, and found the incumbent Senator’s numbers lagging. If you feel so inclined, I suggest dropping them a card and leaving the names of candidates you’d like to see tested against Martinez.

Personally, I’d be inclined to line up Martinez against Reps. Ron Klein and Kathy Castor, but you’re encouraged to put forth your own suggestions.

While this is coming from Bob Novak’s column, I found it very interesting nonetheless.  I would still guess that Rendell won’t challenge Specter because (1) they are friends; and (2) I am not sure the Senate would be Rendell’s cup of tea.  

That being said, 2010 is a long ways away, plus Rendell realizes that after he leaves Harrisburg, he will be out of office completely.  It would certainly be a great opening, and there is no doubt Rendell would be our best possible nominee.  Besides, given Specter’s age, all of his talk about definitely running may just be bluster.  

SPECTER’S OPPONENT?

Pennsylvania’s popular Democratic Gov. Edward Rendell is reported by party sources to be considering a race for the Senate in 2010 even if his friend and fellow Philadelphian, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, seeks re-election.

Specter has indicated that he wants a sixth term in the Senate, but that may depend on his health. He is suffering from a recurrence of cancer.

Republican insiders believe that Specter might decide to run as an independent if conservatives launch another serious Republican primary campaign against him, as they did in 2004. A three-way election would all but guarantee the election of a Democrat.  

…as a Democrat?  From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Friedman said he is considering running again for governor in 2010, as a Democrat.

“God probably couldn’t have won as an independent,” Friedman said.

“My focus would be on education and getting rid of the death penalty. I don’t think that’s a radical view. What part of ‘Thou shalt not kill’ don’t people understand?”

Now, I’m not from Texas, but as I recall, Kinky’s lackluster 12.6% of the vote that November was attributable to his schtick wearing thin over the course of the campaign.

The response to this idea over at the Burnt Orange Report is, not surprisingly, overwhelming negative.

Bear with me here.  Let's assume for a moment that Hillary is our 2008 Presidential nominee, and that she wins.  Fast forward to the election aftermath, where Gov. Eliot Spitzer has the task of appointing a replacement to fill Clinton's Senate vacancy.

Whom might Spitzer appoint?  And whom would you want Spitzer to appoint?

Spitzer surprised many observers when he tapped state Senator David Paterson for his running mate in 2006, and perhaps he could surprise again given the chance.  Despite being large in number, there is no one of tremendous stature in the state's Democratic congressional delegation who could be tapped (Charlie Rangel, at 77, is too old), but that's not to say that I think a promotion from the House to the Senate is unlikely.

If Spitzer wanted to get political rival and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo off his back, he could always appoint him, but that seems unlikely given their prickly relationship.

Perhaps even Paterson himself could be a possibility, but one would expect that Spitzer would come under pressure to balance the state's Senatorial delegation with an appointee from upstate rather than a second Senator with Brooklyn roots.

There has been little talk yet of this subject, possibly because Hillary must leap through two hoops (the primary and the general election) before such a scenario occurs.  But we here at Swing State like to explore the hypotheticals, so share your thoughts in the comments below.

No, that’s not a typo.  Inspired by DailyKos diarists Senate 2008 Guru (whose own blog can be found here) and jedinecny, why don’t we look ahead–far ahead–to 2010 and ponder what the Senate race picture might look like.  34 seats are up for grabs in 2010, 19 held by Republicans, and 15 by Democrats:

Alabama (Shelby-R)
Alaska (Murkowski-R)
Arizona (McCain-R)
Arkansas (Lincoln-D)
California (Boxer-D)
Colorado (Salazar-D)
Connecticut (Dodd-D)
Florida (Martinez-R)
Georgia (Isakson-R)
Hawaii (Inouye-D)
Idaho (Crapo-R)
Illinois (Obama-D)
Indiana (Bayh-D)
Iowa (Grassley-R)
Kansas (Brownback-R)
Kentucky (Bunning-R)
Louisiana (Vitter-R)
Maryland (Mikulski-D)
Missouri (Bond-R)
Nevada (Reid-D)
New Hampshire (Gregg-R)
New York (Schumer-D)
North Carolina (Burr-R)
North Dakota (Dorgan-D)
Ohio (Voinovich-R)
Oklahoma (Coburn-R)
Oregon (Wyden-D)
Pennsylvania (Specter-R)
South Carolina (DeMint-R)
South Dakota (Thune-R)
Utah (Bennett-R)
Vermont (Leahy-D)
Washington (Murray-D)
Wisconsin (Feingold-D)

On the surface, that’s a fairly good plate for Democrats.  Remember, this is the culmination of the 2004 cycle, which by all measures was a disaster for Team Blue with the loss of 5 Southern seats due to retirements (Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina), so the GOP has already squeezed out a fair amount of blood from this class.  Perhaps it’s time for the pendulum to swing the other way.  It’d be hard to imagine unpopular Republican Sen. Jim Bunning, for instance, running again in 2010.  Bunning would leave an open seat for the likes of Democratic Rep. Ben Chandler, who would have a good shot against any Republican, and probably an even better shot should Bunning decide to throw another pitch into the mound.  Retirements by Republican incumbents in Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania or Missouri could sweeten the deal even further.

It goes without saying, of course, that national dynamics–such as the popularity of the next President–could seriously alter the playing field beyond anything we can anticipate today.  That said, though, this is just for kicks.  So: how does 2010 look to you?

It’s four years off in the horizon, but it’s never too early to plan ahead for open seat Senate races.  From CQ, comes word that Presidential hopeful Chris Dodd has determined that, one way or another, this will be his last term in the Senate:

Sen. Christopher Dodd, through his counsel, has sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission stating he “is no longer a candidate in the 2010 election for the United States Senate in Connecticut.”

Do you have a favorite to replace Dodd in four years?  A comebacker for Ned Lamont, perhaps?  Or maybe a promition for rising star Chris Murphy?  CT’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, has long been rumored to have higher aspirations, but has been hindered by a lack of openings at the top of the ticket (and his unwillingness to challenge popular Republican Gov. Jodi Rell last November).  Has his time passed, or is this just the opening that he’s been waiting for?

On the flip side, who might be the Republican standard-bearer?  Chris Shays, who could prove formidable, will be 65 in 2010.  Rob Simmons, who lost narrowly to Democrat Joe Courtney last year, will be even older (67).  I can’t seem to find Blumenthal’s date of birth on the ‘net.

Update: Looks like we might be jumping the gun here, according to Hotline On Call:

Well, while legally true, CT Dems shouldn’t start licking their chops about the supposed “open seat” in three years. In order to transfer all of his money he raised for his 2010 re-election to his WH campaign account without penalty, he had to file a statement with the FEC saying he wouldn’t run. It’s simply an accounting thing, nothing more. In fact, should Dodd not be elected POTUS in ’08, he, indeed can legally open a new Senate 2010 account. He did this so that he could raise maximum amounts from donors who gave to that 2010 campaign account.

An inquiry to Dodd’s campaign about the above mentioned story prompted the following response from spokesperson Beneva Schulte: “It’s a legality that isn’t an indication of future plans.”

Dodd will be 64 in 2008.  Presumably, he should have enough gas in the tank for another term or two.  Or he could pull a Bob Graham.  We’ll see.