Is getting a filibuster-proof Senate a realistic goal for Democrats?

 

Cross-posted at Election Inspection

 Before looking at whether or not the Democrats can expect to get the magic sixty, lets review the seats which have the potential to flip, starting from the ones most likely to flip to the ones least likely to flip (anything not listed here means that we consider the seats to be completely safe). (Note, these are all Election Inspection's ratings) 

Solid Democratic (Pick-up)

  • Virginia (Warner)
  • New Mexico (Domenici)
Leans Democratic
  • Sununu (New Hampshire)
  • Landrieu (Lousiana)
  • Colorado (Allard)
  • Stevens (Alaska)

Leans Republican

  • Smith (Oregon)
  • Coleman (Minnesota)
  • Collins (Maine)
  • Wicker (Mississippi-B)
  • McConnell (Kentucky)

Likely Republican (Open Seat retention)

  • Idaho (Craig)

Possible Darkhorse Races (Republican Incumbent)

  • Dole (North Carolina)
  • Cornyn (Texas)
  • Inhofe (Oklahoma)
  • Roberts (Kansas)

First of all, I think we can safely assume that Democrats will win in New Mexico and Virginia, so we can start off with a net gain of two seats for the Democrats. So, to start off with in the second session, the Democrats are basically guaranteed to start from a vantage point of 50 seats. With the way the Leans Democratic races have been playing out (including the newly added AK-Sen), I'm pretty confident that the Democrats will win at least three and probably all four (Pollster shows Democrats leading by at least 5 points in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Alaska) and while it seems like it's close in Louisiana, with the exception of Zogby, Landrieu has shown to have a consistent lead of no less than 3 points (with the most recent Rasmussen poll giving Landrieu a 5 point edge). So, we'll give the Democrats three more seats and put them up to 53 seats (by the way, this doesn't include Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman who caucus with the Democrats). Alright, so the score now should be at Democrats 53 guaranteed seats and Republicans with 34 guaranteed seats. Now then, let's assume that Republicans win all of the seats which I consider to be either Likely or a potential Dark-horse (which, realistically, is more likely to happen than not), Republicans will have 38 seats (from now on, I'm going to consider Sanders to be a Democrat, for the purposes of voting, which gives the Democrats 54 seats and I'm going to consider Lieberman a wild-card as far as voting in concerned since, even though Lieberman has taken a more Conservative position on several issues, he is still considered to be more likely to support Democratic domestic agendas than Republican ones). So we have a score of 54-39-1, which means that for Democrats to win a filibuster-proof Senate which doesn't rely on Lieberman, they'll have to win 6 additional seats on top of the 5 which I'm projecting for them to win already, now how realistic a shot to Democrats have at this? 

I believe that more likely than not, Democrats will win in Louisiana, so we'll give the Democrats that extra seat which puts the score at 55-39-1 (5 undecided). I also think that Republicans should win in Kentucky. so the score now stands at 55-40-1 (4 undecided), which also basically eliminates any reasonable possibility of Democrats getting to the magic 60 number without Lieberman (which, might not be as bad as people think). So, that means that whether or not the Democrats can get to a filibuster proof senate rests on Minnesota, Maine, Oregon, and Mississippi-B. Mississippi-B and Oregon look to be within striking distance but Maine and Minnesota, seem to be moving away from us, so right now, I'd say that, at most, Democrats will probably end up with 57 seats (including Sanders) Republicans with 42 seats, and Joe Lieberman as a wild-card in the Senate.

Doesn't look like we're going to get our filibuster-proof majority this time around, but we'll do well enough that it's possible we can set 2010 up to get there.

17 thoughts on “Is getting a filibuster-proof Senate a realistic goal for Democrats?”

  1. Lunsford would need to toss a lot of cash in for me to change my opinion on it.  

  2. From 1950 to the present each side has managed one election in which it gained at least 9 Senate seats.  Republicans pulled the trick in 1980 and Democrats in 1958.  I’ve always felt that Democrats would pick up around 5 seats this time. Now, it is leaning to six.  That’s a long way from nine and more consistent with many recent years: 2006,1994,1986,1974,1968 and 1950 all saw moves of 5 to 8 seats.

    Gaining five or more seats in 2008 is actually quite an achievement.  The feat of back-to-back 5 seat (or more) pickups was accomplished only once since the popular election of Senators began almost 100 years ago: by Democrats in 1930(+8),1932 (+11),1934 (+9) and 1936 (+5).  It took unemployment at 32% (not a typo, 32%)to bring that on.  And no safety net.

  3. Nobody thought they would get the six needed for control in 2006. Even on election day most thought 5 was likely the best case. This year I think four is the floor, 9 the ceiling.

  4. But he’s at least as reliable on domestic issues as folks like the Nelsons or Landrieu, so I don’t see why not (the Prez has plenty of discretion in foreign policy).

    Five are in the bag, and we need four more. Knocking off Smith, Coleman, Wicker, and Dole is eminently doable in a large enough wave.

    My gut still says we’ll be a couple short, but that shouldn’t be a serious problem.

  5. I’d put the odds of us gaining 9 seats at about 3-1 odds.  VA and NM are locks.  CO, NH, and AK are strongly leaning in our favor.  That makes 5 seats right there.  After that we need another 4 seats from OR, MN, ME, NC, KY, MS, ID, KS, and OK.  At this point I’d say we’ll take 2-3 of those, leaving us as +7 or +8.  We also have to defend LA which won’t be easy.

  7. North Carolina should be in the same category as the others. Dole has opened up a solid lead with her recent fundraising effort but I don’t think its a real solid lead. Plus North Carolina, unlike those other states will be competitive at the presidential level.

  8. Let’s say we pick up Virginia, New Mexico, Alaska, New Hampshire and Colorado.  That’s 5.

    Common sense would tell me that Minnesota would be a Tossup more so than Leans Republican.  Polling has been all over the place during this race.  Polling samples have also been really weird.  A poll a few weeks ago showed Coleman with a lead over Franken with younger voters which really makes no sense whatsoever.  My gut tells me Coleman is toast.  Also I think we can nic Oregon and squeek out Mississippi-B (if African-American turnout is what people say it’s going to be).  That’s 8.

    Where does that last one (or two) come from?  I don’t like our chances in Maine or Kentucky.  Is Idaho viable?  We’ll see in the coming months.  

    I say our best shots are in North Carolina and Texas to pick up that last one.  North Carolina is going to take a real fight.  Hagan has been raising the dough and needs to spend that money on ads introducing herself to NC and maybe cling onto those Obama coattails.  Noriega needs some help bad.  He needs to get some attention fast.  Cut corners and make an ad buy in strategic parts of the state where you can shore up some extra votes or change minds (Rio Grande Valley; DFW; West Texas).

    I say we only hit 59 but I hope I’m wrong.  5 months ago I thought we’d only pick up 4.  It’s August already and I think there’s still time for a few of them.

  9. either party had a filibuster-proof majority?

    I think this will be a +6 or +7 year for the Dems.  Historic turnout for Dems plus less than enthusiastic Righties puts us in a position to win seats that might otherwise slip past us.  

    Barring some major change, +5 (VA, NM, CO, AK, NH) looks like the baseline for wins. MS, MN, OR, and NC all look like real possibilities, but incumbents are a lot tougher to beat that open seats.  ME, OK, and KS seem to be slipping away based on the latest polls.  Of course, you never know when a Craig – Vitter – Stevens moment might make another seat competitive…

Comments are closed.