When we began the cycle, SSP rated just four Dem-held Senate seats as potentially competitive, and none worse than “Lean D.” (And when Arlen Specter switched parties, his race started over at Likely D.) Now, we have ten blue seats up on the big board, with at least eight in serious jeopardy and only one (CT) trending our way.
The GOP has done a tremendous job expanding the playing field, though of course they’ve also benefitted from some retirements which they can’t exactly take responsibility for – though if they want credit for Evan Bayh being a total d-bag, I’m happy to give it to them. But my real question is, can they expand the playing field even further? Sadly, I think it’s possible. Let’s take a look at the races which SSP currently has slotted in our “Races to Watch” category:
- Hawaii: This seat has been on the small chance that outgoing Republican Gov. Linda Lingle could challenge octogenarian Dan Inouye. She hasn’t taken any steps toward making the race, but she hasn’t ruled it out, either. Like most incumbent governors, though, Lingle is not as popular these days as she once was – a recent Mason-Dixon poll pegged her with 38-31 favorables. (An R2K survey from June had her at 51-43, down slightly from 53-41 in Dec. 2008.) Still, Lingle would make a strong challenger to Inouye, and could even inspire him to step down. Lingle is only 56, though, and may be waiting until 2012, when Hawaii’s other 85-year-old senator, Dan Akaka, may retire. But native son Barack Obama will be on the ballot that year, and the wind is at the GOP’s back now.
- New York (B): Kirsten Gillibrand had been on the list because of the (now very unlikely) possibility that former Gov. George Pataki could challenge her. Pataki seems to prefer deluding himself into a presidential run, but even if the great Hungarian-American hope won’t make a go of it for the GOP, I’m feeling pretty mistrustful these days. Gillibrand is the opposite of Martha Coakley – she works her ass off. But could a potentially damaging primary against Harold Ford give some zillionaire Republican opening? With New York’s extremely late primary date, I wouldn’t want to rule it out. Still, unless Pataki has a change of heart, the GOP doesn’t even have a second-tier candidate here.
- Washington: Patty Murray has been blessed by the lack of a strong challenger so far, though the GOP did recently get an upgrade here in the form of state Sen. Don Benton. As we noted in our recent rating change on this race, however, two much heavier-weight contenders may be reconsidering their earlier decisions not to get involved: Rep. Dave Reichert and two-time gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi. Neither seem likely to make a move, but if either jumps in, it’s showtime.
- Wisconsin: Former Gov. Tommy Thompson has been playing footsie here for some time now, but that’s not the only reason this seat is on our watch list. The quirky Russ Feingold has the potential to make this race a lot more interesting than we’d like. Though he won by twelve points in 2004, in 1998 (while observing some self-inflicted spending limits), Feingold eked out just a two-point win in what was otherwise a good Dem year. Wisconsin is a lot less blue than New York, and even a fairly anonymous GOPer could cause trouble here. It’s hard to get a read on Feingold’s favorables these days, since polling is scarce – they’re ugh if you want to believe Rasmussen, and pretty good if you don’t. Still, this race makes me nervous, especially since the state went for John Kerry by just four tenths of a percentage point – and Al Gore by just two tenths.
Fortunately, the rest of the list looks a lot better. Unfortunately, it’s really short:
- Maryland: Thankfully, the recent rumors that Barbara Mikulski might retire turned out to bogus. And just as thankfully, the GOP has no one to tap here (which is why they are pinning their hopes on retread Bob Ehrlich in the gubernatorial race). Dems will have lots of strong candidates ready to go whenever Mikulski decides to call it quits.
- New York (A): If Chuck Schumer winds up in anything remotely resembling a competitive race, just start drinking now.
- Oregon: The Republicans mercifully have no bench here. Rep. Greg Walden, the state lone GOP House member, already said no to a race for the open governor’s mansion. I can’t imagine John Cornyn could get him into a race against Ron Wyden, and I don’t want to.
- Vermont: Outgoing GOP Gov. Jim Douglas could theoretically force something of a contest with Pat Leahy. But a guy who doesn’t want to run for re-election as governor probably isn’t any more interested in taking on an incumbent in an otherwise very blue state – we hope.
Just to be sure, I’m not saying I think it’s likely the GOP can really expand the playing field – just that it’s possible. Already, though, the Republicans have done something pretty impressive: They’ve put themselves in a position where it’s even possible to imagine they could retake control of the Senate this fall. Given that Democrats held 60 seats for most of 2009 and still hold 59 today (as well as having the Vice Presidential buffer), that’s a chilling thought.
So this is as good a time as any to ask: How many Senate seats do you think the GOP will pick up in November?
Loading ...
Then Lieberman will change parties, making it a perfect 10!!!
I’m actually very concerned about Hawaii, because given how things have been going recently, Lingle will jump in, and then we’ll hear about an Inouye retirement, giving her the advantage in yet another blue state.
We can’t afford to lose so many seats in blue states. We won’t have a chance to take back the Senate again until 2016 if we do with all the seats we have to defend in 2012 and 2014.
I think we will lose ND, DE, AR, NV, and CO while winning MO. I’ve got my eye out on IL, PA, and IN, but at the end of the cycle we will win these three seats. I’m actually more worried about IL because Kirk is a solid candidate while the IN Republican wannabes are weak.
In order of likelihood:
1. ND
2. DE
3. AR
4. NV
5. IN
6. CO
7. PA
I think Giannoulias will win by the skin of his teeth in IL. No Dem pickups.
Eight GOP pickups (IN & PA, not IL or CA) and one DEM pickup (MO).
I’m originally from Vermont and I know the scene pretty well up there. I can tell you that Gov. Jim Douglas will NOT be running against Patrick Leahy. For those of you who don’t know, Douglas was VT’s secretary of state in 1992 when he ran against Leahy. That was the former’s only career electoral defeat and he was beaten 54-43, if I recall. So I don’t think that’ll happen again.
I’m going to be a bit of a wuss and say what we all know: it depends on the environment and especially perceptions of the economy. If the environment is like it was last month, I can see a loss of eight seats, minimum. If things get better, I can see losses limited to three to four seats. I think it all comes down to the economy. Health care is at best a wash, even if it passes.
think we will lose 6 seats
*North Dakota- Not a chance in hell.
*Delaware- I am rooting for Coons, and if he runs a great campaign then it’s possible, but still not that likely.
*Arkansas- Even if Halter steps in, we will lose this seat. The only way we win it is if Beebe runs, and it’s not going to happen.
*Nevada- Reid has some time to turn it around, but still I seriously doubt he can.
*Colorado- I really think Bennet could pull this race off, especially if he campaigns as good as he fundraises. However it doesn’t look good for him.
*Pennsylvania- The state has a strong dem base and indies used to like Specter a lot, and honestly he can do it. But for now he will remain on my list.
*Illinois- Mark Kirk is a faux moderate, and people LOVE faux moderates. Not to mention that the candidate we have is not squeaky clean.
*The republicans will win one of the races to watch, because shit happens.
*I will take one off my prediction when totaling it up because I think out of that list there has to be at least one dem who can end up breaking the odds.
*Finally I think we will gain 1 republican seat. Missouri and I think we could potentially gain more if we are lucky.
*Also there is a good chance LIEberman switches; I can’t wait to see him get tea bagged. I only think he switches if republicans are one away or in control though, so he will remain off my grand total.
I was probably a bit conservative with my list, but apparently conservatism is in this year 🙂
I am not optimistic about MO. Maybe things will improve for us in NH.
We will lose the Senate in 2012 for sure if not this year. We have too many seats to defend in 2012.
I think we lose between 6-8 net seats.
I don’t really like our few shots at offense (Missouri is moving away from us and Hodes has been very blah and NH is trending hard right with special elections this year).
Everyone seems to think that Dems are screwed during this upcoming election cycle – that somehow a loss of 8+ seats is inevitable. Sure ND is long gone and AR is increasingly looking that way, but beyond that most of these races are winnable. Coons will need to run the campaign of his life to pull off DE, and Reid needs to get his act together to take on the 2nd tier chumps in NV, but why is everyone writing off CO, PA, IL, and IN. Bennet, Specter and Giannoulias are all capable campaigners and if you look past Rasmussens narrative affirming garbage, all of these races are competitive. Plus if Ellsworth goes for it in IN, there’s a strong chance of retention. Not to mention the two great pickup opportunities in MO and NH.
I’m not saying Dems won’t have to work hard to prevent losing the 8 or so seats, but everyone just seems to want to stick a fork in all these people and that only plays into the narrative all these political “experts” have been pushing.
My predictions: We lose North Dakota, Arkansas, Nevada (that one will be close), Pennsylvania (another heartbreaker on several levels), maybe Illinois, and maybe one from the list above– let’s say Hawaii. Thats -6.
But I think Coons can pull it off in Delaware, Ellsworth/Hill/whoever will manage to take Indiana, and I’ve got a good (if irrational) feeling about Colorado.
And then, I honestly think we’ve got pick-up opportunities in North Carolina, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Arizona (possibly). I think we get at least one of those, hopefully two. A loss of 4 or 5.
First-term midterm? Yeah. 1994? No. There’s a long campaign ahead, and the GOP still doesn’t have any ideas and is still being controlled by teabaggers.
Bear in mind, however, I have never won the babka. I could be way off.
Just because I feel like I should. I say we only lose three seats: ND, DE and AR. I think Reid pulls it out in NV. I’m probably more optimistic than most on this site in that sense. Where I’m more pessimistic: I don’t think we win any of the open seats. I think Ayotte wins the primary and the election in NH, Portman is just too strong moneywise in OH, KY is too Repub a state for even Rand Paul to lose and I think MO is going to be close, but I just don’t have enough confidence in Carnahan to pull it out, at this point. NC I don’t see either: Marshall is a weak candidate, and I think Cunningham probably needs a bit more seasoning.
Okay, I feel better about myself now.
Overall: Two loses (maybe someone more, but I think very few)
I think the economy can up until November and the majority of Toss-Up races will be for democrats. This will be the real key for next elections. If the cabinet start to create jobs that can goes up.
I think the first reason for have all these problems for senate are the mistakes of recruitment. For what of these race Democratic Party recruit the better option electorally? Only for MO, and unsure for NV and PA.
I say we lose ND, AR, and NV, and pick up MO and NH.
We’ll see who’s right in November, I guess. But I think the GOP is peaking way too soon, and Dems are favored in all the remaining seats.
As do Blumenthal and Boxer. Besides that, I think the GOP virtually sweeps the “toss-ups,” ultimately falling just 2-3 seats short of winning back the majority.
However, I tend to think that sans the MD/NY-A/OR/VT combo, ditto HI, none of the aforementioned seats are Safe Dem. Even Blumenthal. I think WA/MN/NY-B are all Likely Dem for now, and CA is – gasp – only Lean Dem.
This year, it’s all about the candidates, IMHO.
I bet we win Missouri–Carnahan is popular and Blunt is simply not. Hickenlooper will pull Bennett (or Romanoff) across the finish line in CO. Ayotte will probably make some rookie mistakes in NH and generic Dem (Hodes) will eke out a victory. Ellsworth can pull it off in IN. And I’m going out on a limb here and saying that I actually like Reid’s chances better than most–he’ll go nuclear with his massive warchest on whomever wins the Republican nod and make them even more unpopular than himself. And Pat Toomey is NOT going to win Pennsylvania, no matter what Rasmussen says.
Wins: MO, CO, NH, IN, NV, PA
North Dakota’s gone. Arkansas is gone, with Lincoln or Halter. Castle should beat Coons. Nominating the corrupt-seeming Giannoulias will come back to bite us in the butt–I can see a squeaky-clean-seeming guy like Kirk winning, barely, despite the Dem lean.
Losses: ND, AR, DE, IL
I think this puts me in the optimists’ camp, with four losses and two pickups for a net loss of 2.
And let’s not forget AZ…if Hayworth somehow manages to defeat McCain, we will almost surely win AZ with Glassman or whomever else is running. Because JD Hayworth is nuts.
In ND Hoeven is less dominant than expected. This means he wins 59-41.
Reid pulls it close with his money, but ends up losing 52-48. If he abandons ship, I think we win it.
Lincoln goes down in flames. Whilst the DLC frantically raises money for her, the left flank of the netroots continues to fund ads against her in an attempt to push her numbers from the 30s to the 20s.
In Delaware, Coons runs a closer race than anybody expected him to, but lacks the money or institutional support to beat Castle. Tom Carper sits on the fence, and rumours immediately start of a 2012 primary challenge to him.
Specter edges Sestak, and promptly moves hard right. In retaliation the SEIU refuses to support him. Specter performs appallingly in the debates and even a succession of increasingly vitriolic attack ads can’t save Pennsylvania from Senator Toomey.
I won’t make a prediction for Indiana, as I have no idea who the candidates will be.
On the flip side, I expect Democrats to win at least one and probably two of NH, Ohio and Missouri. I think Carnahan will struggle until campaigning starts in earnest, at which point Roy Blunt’s corruption will let her reel him back in, I think Ayotte will perform fairly terribly on the stump and I think that after Brunner pulls an upset primary win she’ll launch a couple of money bombs and suddenly start to look halfway competitive in cash terms.
Meanwhile I’d expect one currently safe seat (probably Washington) to be surprisingly close, and I wouldn’t rule out Marshall in NC.
On the other hand, I think Giannoulis will walk it in Illinois from may onwards, that Bennet will run a surprisingly steady campaign and win by at least 8 points and that Democrats will get hammered in Kentucky.
All this, of course, is predicated on a slight recovery for Democrats nationally, but I’m willing to be that there’s a dead cat bounce or two left.
….that includes us taking one Republican seat (probably Missouri) and retaining Pennsylvania and Illinois. All not givens. Of course we have don’t know how things will play out. If there is a war perhps we lose nothing and gain a seat. On the other hand …. and this should scare the living daylights out of you …. Barack Obama’s polling numbers have yet to really crater. Creating the potential for even worse scenarios. Especially once the insurance, banking, and energy industries start putting insane money into races as they are now allowed to.
– Murray is one of our more POTENTIALLY vulnerable Senators. But you need a warm body. What turns Washington and Oregon (where there isn’t even a lukewarm body) around for the Republicans is if you start having loopy turnout models where you get the vote out hardcore in the east and the western Democrats are demoralized.
– Feingold I love. One of my favorite senators. But Tommy Thompson worries me. Hopefully he has Pataki-itis and decides to go for President again. Thompson is playing hamlet and waiting until the bitter end to decide so he may end up kneecapping the Republicans if he doesnt get in.
– Inouye worries me because of the one one thing we don’t want to talk about. His age. Yes he’s vibrant, sharp, and active for his age. But the problem is that you never know when age will catch up to you. Ted Kennedy looked great until he wasn’t. Same for Robert Byrd who was nowhere near the broken hollow figure he is now back when he ran for re-election. I hope Inouye lives to be a hundred and stays sharp and able the entire time. But any time you have an 87 year old running you’re taking a gamble.
– Gillibrand is probably fine unless Pataki runs. Not sure Mort Zuckerman even CAN run as a Republican without a Wilson-Pakula since I believe already registered voters need to be registered about a year in advance in that party to even sign a nominating petition. And this doesn’t seem like a good year for fuzzy moderates.
On the other hand, particularly if Ford can get on the ballot for the general, I worry about either the Governor’s race or the Senate race becoming racially divisive. And that coming back to bite us. Particularly if Ford starts explicitly playing the race card and calling out Democrats for throwing out an incumbent black Governor.
– In Maryland you’d need a Mikulski retirement, perhaps a John Ehrlich run or an ambitious well known Democrat switching parties, and a fratricidal New York 1992 style Democratic primary. Or put another way HIGHLY unlikely.
Though still plenty time to get better or worse. North Dakota is gone and Arkansas is looking that way. Delaware and Nevada next then a gap to Colorado and Pennsylvania. There is a new Dem internal that has Alexi up in Illinois. It’ll be close but I think he wins because of the president. I stand by what I said about Indiana last night – no idea until we know who the candidates will be. I also think the GOP will get some further recruitment sucesses but only to the extent they widen the playing feild rather than actually winning other seats. Bare minimum is to hold at 51 because I think it is stone cold certain Lieberman will switch if they get to 50-50.
And nine months is an eternity in politics. Having blown ramming HCR through fast, the smart move now might be to split the package into several popular stand-alone measures and force the GOP to either cast unpopular votes against or rile their own base and depress their TO by voting in favor.
Seems to make sense to me. Going reconciliation route likely to continue the PR bleeding, esp as costs kick in long before benefits. Dems would look high-handed and oblivious to public opinion. Anyway, spliiting HCR would allow Dems to go on offensive. Since not doing too well on tactical defensive, seems going on the attack is a more likely way to retain seats.
Since this does not look like an option, reversing the tide will be out of our hands. We will hoping for enough of an economic bounce and unemployment drop to shift public perception, which is doubtful.
So eight looks like a probable ballpark. Would cut it to 7 if I was sure about NH.
I’d watch NH, IL and CA to see if the wave is turning into a tsunami. Add NY-B and WS if Pataki and Thompson stop playing Hamlet.
A double-digit loss is a distinct possibility. In senate races, the national tide plays a big roll and close races tend to break en masse for the party surfing on the crest.
Right now, I’d say Democrats lose 6, maybe 7. I think we’ll hold 1-2 between IL, PA, and IN. But we could also lose as few as 3, if we can hold Republican gains to 4-5 and pick up 1-2. Granted, this probably requires that national climate to improve slightly. Getting health care passed, improvement in the economy, and a mobilized campaign could do it.
That said, the seat I’m really worried about isn’t even an official race for now – WV. In a normal year, should Byrd’s seat become vacant, Gov. Joe Manchin should probably hold it. But in this climate, I think it would probably go Republican in a special election.
We also have to hope Lautenberg stays healthy. Otherwise we get a Republican appointment and though NJ is a Democratic state, in this climate, the Republicans could retain it in November.
The Dems could possibly drop 6-8 seats in the Senate, something that none of us thought possible at the start of this cycle, and yet, I find it very hard to imagine the Repubs picking up more than 25-30 seats in the House. It looks like we’re going to be hit much worse in the Senate, which is downright incredible considering where we’ve been.
The NRCC being virtually broke is going to really be a big factor in the upcoming house elections, IMO.
not John
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. They lose ND, DE, IN, AR, CO, IL, NV, PA and one shocker (pick from CA, NY-B, WA, or WI). And win nothing. There’s also the possibility of something happening to Byrd, Inouye, Lautenberg, or anyone of the other old-timers. No more special elections please!
I mean I understand it with February’s eyes, but we are talking about November results. If by then we’ve got a couple of quarters of growth and we passed HCR I think the Democrats are in much better shape, and the national mood won’t be as dire. Losing a net 3-4 seats seems the likeliest bet to me at the moment, especially as I think some people here are selling short the idea of Democratic gains in OH, NH and even NC and KY.
Of course, a lot could change either way, but as of now I see them losing ND, DE, AR, NV, CO and PA, and not gain any. I think Giannoulis will hold on to IL, and Ellsworth to IN. If Ellsworth is not the candidate, then I’d up it to seven. However, it wouldn’t surprise if Reid and whoever wins in PA ends up winning. And of course, Dems could win seats from them in places like MO, NH and OH.
Douglas actually has already lost to Leahy once, in 1992, when Douglas was State Treasurer. Douglas was to Leahy then what Mitt Romney was to Ted Kennedy in 1994: closer than any other Gooper will ever come, but still a long way off.
Leahy is probably the safest Democratic incumbent in the country, with Wyden running a close second.
As mentioned above, 9 months is an eternity, so it’s really way too early to be saying anything other than, “Well if the national mood doesn’t change much, then …”
So, here goes. Well if the national mood doesn’t change, then Dems defintely lose ND, IN, AR, and NV, they probably lose PA, and they lose on average one of either CO and DE, with a slight edge to losing CO. With no pick ups, it’s a net loss of 6.
For the House, Nancy lives but only by a little.
The biggest concern I have is 2012. If anything like today’s mood lasts until 2012, then our only hope is if Obama edges out a very narrow victory. We have no hope in the Senate or in a House that will have been redrawn by the 2010 elected legislatures.
P.S. This is why I do not support ending the filibuster.
Sure, I’d rather have a majority of 59 + Joe going into 2011 than the routing that’s looming, but I’d rather swallow a single bitter pill this year than muddle through another 2 years till 2012 with an incoherent and divided caucus under the aegis of Harry Reid.
Worst case scenario I could possibly foresee is ~52 with losses in ND, AR, NV, DE, IN and PA with another out of your IL/PA/CO triumvirate. Portman looks increasingly untouchable in a state like Ohio, MO is touch and go, frankly, and I’m not holding out too much hope for Hodes’ resilience in New Hampshire. I’d like to think someone like Cal Cunningham exposes Richard Burr for the empty shirt he is, but all of this speculation is quite academic, and exactly how many and where we lose seats doesn’t worry me too much:
More importantly, then, I can see the Senate Democratic leadership being given a significant impetus and frankly, just a fresh breath of air under the leadership of Chuck Schumer. I understand that this is a shrunken majority he has to work with and all the attendant pitfalls that exist with less breathing room, essentially, but I have every hope that with the Senate Republicans now including John Hoeven, Mike Castle and Scott Brown (all splendid politicians I thoroughly respect) the national atmosphere begins to bleach the poison that for better or worse the voter’s perfectly warranted in punishing.
On a last note, this is not to say Harry Reid deserves all of the vitriol that is already coming and which will only intensify in the stupid discourse that lies between now and November. I’ll admit that he’s an awful communicator and there’s absolutely nothing about him that someone can find charming or likeable, but he’s had a great many achievements since 2006 that have essentially saved the country.
Oh, and if the Republicans DID take the Senate, I’m not in the slightest bit worried that Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader makes a dent in anything significant with a revitalized President and Schumer staring him down. McConnell’s even more benign and boring than Harry Reid, and that takes some beating.