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.

United States Senate (Chart and Open Virginia)

Cross-posted at Election Inspection under elliotka and at Daily Kos under NMLib

Ok, for a bit of a break in the primary action, it’s time to start looking at some Senate races. Basically, what I’m going to do is do a ranking system much like Charlie Cook does, only I will also be giving a fairly detailed analysis of each race, also the races which would normally be classified as “likely” for incumbent parties, I’m going to label as Possible Darkhorse Races. Finally, I’m going to do this list in multiple posts, as to be more thorough with each race. I will not be giving an analysis of any incumbent races which I see as being completely uncompetitive, just because there’s no reason for it.

(Formating note: races with an incumbent running for re-election will have that incumbent followed by the state in parenthesis, and vice-versa for open seat contests)

Solid Democratic (Pick-up)

  • Virginia (Warner)

Solid Democratic (Retention)

  • Kerry (Massachusetts)
  • Durbin (Illinois)
  • Baucus (Montana)
  • Johnson (South Dakota)
  • Levin (Michigan)
  • Lautenberg (New Jersey)
  • Harkin (Iowa)
  • Biden (Delaware)
  • Reed (Rhode Island)
  • Pryor (Arkansas)
  • Rockefeller (West Virginia)

Leans Democratic (Pick-up)

  • New Mexico (Domenici)
  • Sununu (New Hampshire)

Leans Democratic (Retention)

  • Landrieu (Lousiana)

Toss-up

  • Colorado (Allard)
  • Coleman (Minnesota)

Leans Republican (Retention)

  • Smith (Oregon)
  • Collins (Maine)

Solid Republican (Retention)

  • Graham (South Carolina)
  • McConnell (Kentucky)
  • Enzi (Wyoming-A)
  • Barrasso (Wyoming-B)
  • Sessions (Alabama)
  • Roberts (Kansas)
  • Cochran (Mississippi-A)
  • Chambliss (Georgia)
  • Alexander (Tennessee)

Possible Darkhorse Races (Republicans)

  • Idaho (Craig)
  • Wicker (Mississippi-B)
  • Dole (North Carolina)
  • Stevens (Alaska)*
  • Nebraska (Hagel)
  • Cornyn (Texas)
  • Inhofe (Oklahoma)

I’m going to try to break these posts into looking at each category separately. And so we’ll start with the single Solid Democratic pick-up seat:

Virginia

  • Status: Open Seat
  • Ranking: Solid Democratic (Pick-up)

Democrat running: Mark Warner (former governor)

  • Money raised Quarter 4: $2.7 million
  • Cash on Hand as of 2007: $2.9 million

Republican running: Jim Gilmore

  • Money raised Quarter 4: $343,000
  • Cash on Hand as of 2007: $183,000

Polling from Virginia

  • Rasmussen (Released January 3) Warner 53% Gilmore 38%
  • Survey USA (Released November 5) Warner 57% Gilmore 35%

Analysis: This is probably going to be the most lop-sided victory by the challenging party in the entire season. What’s really ironic is that this race could’ve been a lot more competitive had the Republicans rallied behind Northern Virginia Congressman Tom Davis, who not only had a base of support in Democratic-leaning Northern Virginia, but could actually fundraise effectively. Instead the Republicans rallied behind decidedly unpopular former governor Jim Gilmore (who was forced to drop out of the presidential race because of, you guessed it, lack of funds). The only possible way to describe Gilmore is with what Senate2008Guru has said “Jim Gilmore… hahahahahahahahaha”  The real irony of this particular race is that Mark Warner was also considering a presidential run this time around, but one of the more interesting rumors I’ve heard is that he decided against running because many of the donors who would’ve given to his campaign had already pledged themselves to Barack Obama (this hasn’t generated bad blood though, since Warner is, behind the scenes, rooting for Obama). So what we are left with is a race with a top-tier Democratic candidate who could’ve easily run a fifty-state strategy against an third-tier candidate who no one knows or likes. You can see why I rank this race Solid Democratic.

Next time: New Mexico and New Hampshire (and possibly Louisiana)