2008 Senate Races - Bad Map for Republicans

[Mr.Phips]

I agree that the partisan makeup of the Senate in January 2009 will be 55-45 Democratic.  I think Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon will all be states carried by the Democratic Presidential nominne in 2008 and will also all elect Democratic Senators that year, thus giving the Democrats a net gain of four seats.  As for Louisiana, I would put it as a Lean Dem state - probably the only one.  Landrieu has good approval ratings for an endangered species (Southern Democratic Senator) and her most formidable opponent, Bobby Jindal, is running for Governor and will almost certainly win in 2007, thus removing him from challenging her. 

Im not sure about Oregon.  Smith seems to be in pretty good shape. 

Oregon may be the prediction I regret.  However, I think the DSCC is a very powerfully run organisation under Charles Schumer and given his success in 2006 I feel that Oregon will be an obvious target of his.  It is a Democrat state in a Presidential year in what is likely to be a good Democratic year.  It will obviously be on the target list and Smith has never won by huge margins; 48%-47% in 1996 and 56%-40% in 2002.  I think the DSCC list of targets will be something like this -

1. New Hampshire
2. Colorado
3. Minnesota
4. Oregon
5. Maine

Then the somewhat more; long-shot races like North Carolina, Texas and Oklahoma cannot be discounted either.  Also there is still Virginia, New Mexico and Mississippi - states where the incumbents have not definitely stated they are running for re-election. 

I actually see North Carolina as more likely than Oregon.

If Mike Easley run, yes. If not, Oregon is many notches higher. Are you expecting Easley to run?

No, I am not.  However, North Carolina does have a solid Democratic base and there are plenty of other Democrats besides Easley that could at least make it interesting.

Beyond Easley there is Lieutenant Governor Beverly Perdue and Attorney General Richard Moore, both of whom are expected to run for Governor in 2008 however, there are also at least three credible Congressional candidates - Bob Etheridge, Mike McIntyre and Brad Miller.  Etheridge would be 67 and perhaps too old in 2008.  McIntyre in my view would be an excellent candidate, in 2004 he received ratings of 60 from both ADA and ACU - he has represented a conservative district since 1996 and is still a loyal Democrat.  Miller comes from the marginal NC-13 and has served since 2002, he is a bit older and more liberal than McIntyre, he will be 55 in 2008 and McIntyre will be 52. 

McIntrye is well established in the House -- I doubt he'd run. With the Gubernatorial and other statewide offices getting most of the attention, I expect Dole to cruise to reelection.

Anyways, can you name the last Democrat to win a close Senate race in the South in a Presidential year? Her name is Mary Landrieu and the year was 1996. 12 years is a long time...

Bill Nelson in Florida 2000.

Good point - but Florida and Louisiana are different really.  And it is now harder for a Democrat to win an open-seat election in Florida than a Republican, as evinced by 2004. 

It was very, very close.  Castor almost certainly would have won if the Bin Laden video had not been run and the last minute Republican surge didn't happen.

[MarkWarner08]

I agree that the partisan makeup of the Senate in January 2009 will be 55-45 Democratic.  I think Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon will all be states carried by the Democratic Presidential nominne in 2008 and will also all elect Democratic Senators that year, thus giving the Democrats a net gain of four seats.  As for Louisiana, I would put it as a Lean Dem state - probably the only one.  Landrieu has good approval ratings for an endangered species (Southern Democratic Senator) and her most formidable opponent, Bobby Jindal, is running for Governor and will almost certainly win in 2007, thus removing him from challenging her. 

Im not sure about Oregon.  Smith seems to be in pretty good shape. 

Oregon may be the prediction I regret.  However, I think the DSCC is a very powerfully run organisation under Charles Schumer and given his success in 2006 I feel that Oregon will be an obvious target of his.  It is a Democrat state in a Presidential year in what is likely to be a good Democratic year.  It will obviously be on the target list and Smith has never won by huge margins; 48%-47% in 1996 and 56%-40% in 2002.  I think the DSCC list of targets will be something like this -

1. New Hampshire
2. Colorado
3. Minnesota
4. Oregon
5. Maine

Then the somewhat more; long-shot races like North Carolina, Texas and Oklahoma cannot be discounted either.  Also there is still Virginia, New Mexico and Mississippi - states where the incumbents have not definitely stated they are running for re-election. 

I actually see North Carolina as more likely than Oregon.

If Mike Easley run, yes. If not, Oregon is many notches higher. Are you expecting Easley to run?

No, I am not.  However, North Carolina does have a solid Democratic base and there are plenty of other Democrats besides Easley that could at least make it interesting.

Beyond Easley there is Lieutenant Governor Beverly Perdue and Attorney General Richard Moore, both of whom are expected to run for Governor in 2008 however, there are also at least three credible Congressional candidates - Bob Etheridge, Mike McIntyre and Brad Miller.  Etheridge would be 67 and perhaps too old in 2008.  McIntyre in my view would be an excellent candidate, in 2004 he received ratings of 60 from both ADA and ACU - he has represented a conservative district since 1996 and is still a loyal Democrat.  Miller comes from the marginal NC-13 and has served since 2002, he is a bit older and more liberal than McIntyre, he will be 55 in 2008 and McIntyre will be 52. 

McIntrye is well established in the House -- I doubt he'd run. With the Gubernatorial and other statewide offices getting most of the attention, I expect Dole to cruise to reelection.

Anyways, can you name the last Democrat to win a close Senate race in the South in a Presidential year? Her name is Mary Landrieu and the year was 1996. 12 years is a long time...

Bill Nelson in Florida 2000.

Good point - but Florida and Louisiana are different really.  And it is now harder for a Democrat to win an open-seat election in Florida than a Republican, as evinced by 2004. 

It was very, very close.  Castor almost certainly would have won if the Bin Laden video had not been run and the last minute Republican surge didn't happen.

Bin Laden had nothing to do with that reason. The reason she lost was because of the scandal with the radical cleric who taught at a Florida university. The professor who sh supposedly "protected" was used a scare tactic with Jewish seniors. Martinez won 22% of the Jewish vote in 2004. A highly impressive stat considering McCollum's sub 20% performance in 2000.

If Mr. Phips considers Florida to be a Southern state... Seriously, Florida is an almalgam of America. It has the Northeast, the West,  the South and the Midwest all rolled up into one diverse state. It's not "Southern" culturally or politically..

[GOP = Terrorists]

Here's what I would've said:

I believe I said:

Lean GOP
DeWine
Allen
Talent
Open - Frist

Toss up
Burns
Chafee

Lean Dem
Open - Dayton

Likely Dem
Cantwell
Santorum
Open - Corzine
Stabenow
Ben Nelson
Bill Nelson

[Boris]

My predictions from April 2006 had the Democrats gaining Pennsylvania and Missouri. Rhode Island and Virginia were strong GOP.

Suffice it to say that predictions right now are useless. I'm sure on November 5, 2008 BRTD or someone will dig up this thread and go "LOL"

[Mr.Phips]

My predictions from April 2006 had the Democrats gaining Pennsylvania and Missouri. Rhode Island and Virginia were strong GOP.

Suffice it to say that predictions right now are useless. I'm sure on November 5, 2008 BRTD or someone will dig up this thread and go "LOL"

I don't see how Rhode Island was ever strong GOP.  I always had that as a tossup.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

As far as the US Senate goes, here are my initial thoughts:

Alaska - Safe GOP.
Alabama - Safe GOP.
Arkansas - Strong Dem.
Colorado - To me, this one has the potential to be a toss-up, depending on who winds up being the GOP nominee.  I've not bought into the Udall-as-invincible line; certainly this should be a close race regardless considering Colorado's generic though mild GOP preference.  Still, I'll give Democrats the early edge.
Delaware - Safe Dem, provided Biden runs for re-election.
Georgia - Strong GOP.  Georgia Democrats seem to be in a death spiral, and will no doubt be more interested in playing defense in 2006.
Iowa - Strong Dem.  Harkin has made a living out of defeating top tier GOP recruits.  Still, Iowa is purple and there's a built in GOP base of at least 40% here.
Idaho - Safe GOP.
Illinois - Safe Dem.
Kansas - Safe GOP.
Kentucky - Safe GOP.
Louisiana - Again, a race that has the potential to be a toss-up, but probably has an ever-so-slight Dem advantage.  Landrieu's numbers aren't as bad as they once were, but they're no where near as strong as they need to be to guarantee re-election in a southern state.  This one should prove a lucrative target, so I'd expect a top-tier GOP candidate to get into the race.
Massachusetts - Safe Dem.
Maine - Strong GOP.  People with the kind of approval ratings that Collins have just don't lose re-election bids.  Period.
Michigan - Safe Dem.
Minnesota - Slight GOP.  Coleman is a skilled campaigner, and Ciresi has yet to show he has what it takes to beat him.  Franken is a non-starter.  This will definitely be a top Dem target, and it shouldn't surprise anyone to see it flip, but if Pawlenty could hold on in 2006, I'm willing to give Coleman the benefit of the doubt in 2008.
Mississippi - Safe GOP.
Montana - Strong Dem, if only because it's a Democratic incumbent in a reddish-purplish state.
North Carolina - Lean GOP.  Democrats just don't have much luck here in Presidential years (you have to go back to Sam Ervin's 1968 re-election bid), and Dole is a fairly uncontroversial Republican incumbent.  Still, you can't rule out a strong challenger here...yet.
Nebraska - Safe GOP if Hagel runs for re-election; Strong GOP otherwise.
New Hampshire - Slight GOP.  Sununu's numbers are healthy but unimpressive, and New Hampshire remains a "purple" state.  Still, the Democratic bench in the state is unimpressive, and the two most likely candidates against him - Swett and Shaheen - already have statewide losses to their credit.
New Jersey - Strong Dem.  You can't rule out the GOP 100% here, considering that Frank Lautenberg's numbers aren't exactly stellar, the fact that he's never been a good campaigner (and is definitely getting worse with age), and the fact that he's never actually won an election by a double digit margin.  And while the NJ GOP never wins these races, they've been at least competitive in every Senate race here since 1984.  Still, the best the GOP has to offer in the state are likely to pass, leaving the nomination to a Kean family loyalist like businesswoman Anne Estabrook (who?) or a conservative activist who won't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
New Mexico - Strong GOP.  Domenici looks like a strong bet, but you can't count out the possibility of a health smear gaining momentum.
Oklahoma - Safe GOP.
Oregon - Lean GOP.  Democrats are no doubt anxious to take out purple-stater Smith, but their most likely candidate is second-tier at best.  It'd be easier to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt here if their second-tier effort to oust him in 2002 didn't result in a 17 point Smith victory.  Still, Democrats are likely to carry the state on the Presidential level, so it bears watching for that reason, at least.
Rhode Island - Safe Dem.
South Carolina - Strong GOP.  Graham looks good in the General, but I want to see if he encounters any turbulence in the Primary before calling this 'safe'.
South Dakota - Leans Dem.  Johnson is looking more and more like a candidate for re-election, but this is a very GOP state and 2008 is a Presidential year.  Once the GOP settles on a candidate, things should become more clear.
Tennessee - Strong GOP.  Alexander should cruise, but again, I'll hold off on a 'safe' until the Democrats pull together a slate.
Texas - Strong GOP.  A hard call not to put this one in the safe column, but Cornyn's numbers are poor.  Still, Texas Democrats are likely in no position to capitalize and will be busier playing defense to hold on to some very difficult to hold House seats.
Virginia - Strong GOP, provided Warner runs for re-election as planned.  I'm unconvinced that Mark Warner will run, and John Warner is otherwise a very popular and respected politician.  Allen shot himself in the foot over and over again, and still almost won re-election...and Warner simply starts out in a better position.
West Virginia - Safe Dem, provided Rockefeller runs for re-election.  If not, all hell could break loose.
Wyoming - Safe GOP.

Best guess: Democrats are able to pick up Colorado, and successfully (but narrowly) defend Louisiana.  Republicans defend Maine (easily), Oregon (easily), and Minnesota (not-so-easily).  That's a net pick up of one, with Democrats having the better "upside" potential than Republicans.

[angus]

Seems you put quite a bit of work into your compendium.  nice analysis.  Best quote:  "Franken is a non-starter."  I don't see anything disagreeable, and learned quite a bit that I didn't already know.  You should elaborate sometime on New Mexico, and on Colorado & South Dakota once we know who the candidates will be.

Somerville in the house!  Reprazent.  I lived in Somerville for five years.

Welcome to the forum.

[Verily]

FWIW, Texas Gov. Ann Richards had a 73% approval rating the day she lost reelection to George W. Bush. People with approval ratings that high do occasionally lose elections.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Granted, though I doubt 2008 will be as bad for Republicans as 1994 was for Democrats (it's hard to get outraged at a party out of power); and I doubt Maine will be as blue in 2008 as Texas was red in 1994.

Still, there's room for error, which is why she's not "safe"!

[Mr.Phips]

Granted, though I doubt 2008 will be as bad for Republicans as 1994 was for Democrats (it's hard to get outraged at a party out of power); and I doubt Maine will be as blue in 2008 as Texas was red in 1994.

Still, there's room for error, which is why she's not "safe"!

Republicans will still be in power.  Bush will still be President at the time.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but Republicans won't be in power in the Senate, and Bush will be a lame duck.  After tidal wave elections, you almost always see a little bit of giveback, and a Maine pickup (by beating an immensely popular incumbent, no less) just doesn't seem historically consistent.

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but Republicans won't be in power in the Senate, and Bush will be a lame duck.  After tidal wave elections, you almost always see a little bit of giveback, and a Maine pickup (by beating an immensely popular incumbent, no less) just doesn't seem historically consistent.

There wasn't a giveback in 1996 after the 1994 elections.  Republicans actually picked up two seats in the Senate that year.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Well, there was a giveback in the House anyway, as irrelevant as that is to my point about the Senate!

[Mr.Phips]

Well, there was a giveback in the House anyway, as irrelevant as that is to my point about the Senate!

There wasn't much of a giveback in the House either, about three seats.  There also wasn't any giveback after the 1974 election until 1980.

I am thinking that maybe intervening events delayed the true giveback after 1994 to 2006.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I am on record as stating Collins will go down. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Part of what helped the GOP out in 1996 was the electoral realignment in the south.  They did well there, picking up a lot of historically Democratic seats.  A lot of those gains were offset by the beating they took in Clinton/Gore states, though.

Massachusetts Republicans Torkildsen and Blute lost, Gary Franks lost his seat in Connecticut, Longley lost his seat in Maine, Martini lost his seat in New Jersey, Dan Frisa lost his seat in New York (and man, did he ever), Randy Tate lost in Washington, Jim Bunn lost in Oregon, Mike Flanagan lost in Illinois, Bill Baker lost in California, among others.  Republicans showed little success in capturing seats or expanding their turf on hostile "Clinton" territory.

The trouble for Democrats going into 2008 in the House is that they've just about maximized their gains in the north already.  At best, there's Shays' seat, maybe two possible (but unlikely) in New York, and a hope that lighting could somehow strike twice but harder in NJ-07 (an even bigger longshot).  Democrats hold a massive number of seats carried by Bush in 2004, while Republicans hold hardly any seats that Kerry carried.

It'd be interesting to see a scenario where Democrats build on their House majority. (Can Shays really lose while Lampson holds on?  Can Gerlach really lose while McNerney wins re-election?)  Building on the Senate majority will be easier, like I said, but booting a popular incumbent in purple-blue Maine seems an unlikely player in that.  I just don't see how a Democrat can really build enough leverage to dislodge her.

[Mr.Phips]

Part of what helped the GOP out in 1996 was the electoral realignment in the south.  They did well there, picking up a lot of historically Democratic seats.  A lot of those gains were offset by the beating they took in Clinton/Gore states, though.

Massachusetts Republicans Torkildsen and Blute lost, Gary Franks lost his seat in Connecticut, Longley lost his seat in Maine, Martini lost his seat in New Jersey, Dan Frisa lost his seat in New York (and man, did he ever), Randy Tate lost in Washington, Jim Bunn lost in Oregon, Mike Flanagan lost in Illinois, Bill Baker lost in California, among others.  Republicans showed little success in capturing seats or expanding their turf on hostile "Clinton" territory.

The trouble for Democrats going into 2008 in the House is that they've just about maximized their gains in the north already.  At best, there's Shays' seat, maybe two possible (but unlikely) in New York, and a hope that lighting could somehow strike twice but harder in NJ-07 (an even bigger longshot).  Democrats hold a massive number of seats carried by Bush in 2004, while Republicans hold hardly any seats that Kerry carried.

It'd be interesting to see a scenario where Democrats build on their House majority. (Can Shays really lose while Lampson holds on?  Can Gerlach really lose while McNerney wins re-election?)  Building on the Senate majority will be easier, like I said, but booting a popular incumbent in purple-blue Maine seems an unlikely player in that.  I just don't see how a Democrat can really build enough leverage to dislodge her.

Republicans also picked up some Clinton seats in 1996 like IL-19(Durbin's old seat), KY-03, CA-15 and OK-03. 

They also held onto a lot of freshman and open seats that they really should have lost if you go by Clinton seats:  CA-01, CA-49, GA-10, GA-08, CT-05, NH-01, NH-02, WA-01, WA-02, WA-03, WA-05, IN-08, KY-01, IL-11, NJ-12, NJ-07, OH-01, OH-18, PA-13, PA-21, NY-01, NJ-02, ect. 


This just goes to show that it is not uncommon for the opposite party to hold House seats of the Presidential party that won those seats. 

People think it is such a big deal that there are 62 districts that Democrats hold that Bush carried in 2004.  It is not, and if history tells us anything they should hold more.  For instance, after 1996, Republicans held about 100 seats that Clinton carried.  In 1988, Democrats held 156 seats that Bush carried.  It is usually the norm to have the party holding the white house win far more CD's than are occupied by his party.

[DownWithTheLeft]

New Jersey - Strong Dem.  You can't rule out the GOP 100% here, considering that Frank Lautenberg's numbers aren't exactly stellar, the fact that he's never been a good campaigner (and is definitely getting worse with age), and the fact that he's never actually won an election by a double digit margin.  And while the NJ GOP never wins these races, they've been at least competitive in every Senate race here since 1984.  Still, the best the GOP has to offer in the state are likely to pass, leaving the nomination to a Kean family loyalist like businesswoman Anne Estabrook (who?) or a conservative activist who won't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

While I don't think we will win this race now that Christie is not running (look for him to take Menendez's open seat when he goes to prison), we have at least two good candidates in Assemblyman Bill Baroni and Morris County Freeholder John Murphy who had a strong showing in the 2005 govenor primary.  Except Lautenberg to win by a little less than Menendez since he will have a tougher opponent most likely and less friendly waters.  With a generic presidential candidate except a 51-47 Lautenberg win, with Guilliani on top, it's 50-50 anyone's race

[Mr.Phips]

New Jersey - Strong Dem.  You can't rule out the GOP 100% here, considering that Frank Lautenberg's numbers aren't exactly stellar, the fact that he's never been a good campaigner (and is definitely getting worse with age), and the fact that he's never actually won an election by a double digit margin.  And while the NJ GOP never wins these races, they've been at least competitive in every Senate race here since 1984.  Still, the best the GOP has to offer in the state are likely to pass, leaving the nomination to a Kean family loyalist like businesswoman Anne Estabrook (who?) or a conservative activist who won't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

While I don't think we will win this race now that Christie is not running (look for him to take Menendez's open seat when he goes to prison), we have at least two good candidates in Assemblyman Bill Baroni and Morris County Freeholder John Murphy who had a strong showing in the 2005 govenor primary.  Except Lautenberg to win by a little less than Menendez since he will have a tougher opponent most likely and less friendly waters.  With a generic presidential candidate except a 51-47 Lautenberg win, with Guilliani on top, it's 50-50 anyone's race

I wouldn't count on Guiliani's coattails.  Lautenberg won by 54-45 over a well funded challenger in 1988 even as George H. W. Bush was winning the state 56-43.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

John Murphy is not running for Senate -- he's got his eye on the Governor's seat in 2009.  I'm not sure if Bill Baroni is really going to run (I'm surprised he hasn't taken himself out of things yet), but he'd be a strong candidate despite the "pro-life thing."

Still, like I said...he's probably not going to run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's worth noting that Pete Dawkins, Lautenberg's 1988 challenger, is widely viewed as an embarassing disaster that looked a lot better on paper.  The same goes for his 1994 challenger, in fact!

[HardRCafé]

FWIW, Texas Gov. Ann Richards had a 73% approval rating the day she lost reelection to George W. Bush.

Garin Hart Yang?

[7,052,770]

Mississippi - Safe GOP.

C'mon, Mike Moore will make it a race.  Maybe Lean GOP is the best way to describe it, but unless Cochran decides not to retire (an unlikely possibility from what I hear), Mississippi will be close in 2008, and Moore could definitely win.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Mississippi - Safe GOP.

C'mon, Mike Moore will make it a race.  Maybe Lean GOP is the best way to describe it, but unless Cochran decides not to retire (an unlikely possibility from what I hear), Mississippi will be close in 2008, and Moore could definitely win.

I appreciate your optimism but we haven't heard anything from Cochran or Moore yet - I would certainly be happy if Cochran, who is actually a good GOP Senator, retired and Moore ran to succeed him.  However, the last time there was an open seat in a Presidential year in Mississippi was 1988 - and Trent Lott beat Wayne Dowdy 54%-45%.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Mississippi - Safe GOP.

C'mon, Mike Moore will make it a race.  Maybe Lean GOP is the best way to describe it, but unless Cochran decides not to retire (an unlikely possibility from what I hear), Mississippi will be close in 2008, and Moore could definitely win.

Let me correct myself:
Mississippi - Safe Republican.  If Cochran retires, strong Republican.  It's one of those cases where Democrats have much more success running for state office than federal office.  An upset wouldn't be unheard of, but let's face it -- it's no longer 1966, or even 1986 for that matter.  Democrats just don't play well in the deep south, and they're only going to play worse and worse as time goes on.

Especially in a Presidential Election year.  With a closely divided Senate.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Mississippi - Safe GOP.

C'mon, Mike Moore will make it a race.  Maybe Lean GOP is the best way to describe it, but unless Cochran decides not to retire (an unlikely possibility from what I hear), Mississippi will be close in 2008, and Moore could definitely win.

Let me correct myself:
Mississippi - Safe Republican.  If Cochran retires, strong Republican.  It's one of those cases where Democrats have much more success running for state office than federal office.  An upset wouldn't be unheard of, but let's face it -- it's no longer 1966, or even 1986 for that matter.  Democrats just don't play well in the deep south, and they're only going to play worse and worse as time goes on.

Especially in a Presidential Election year.  With a closely divided Senate.

I still think it is possible.  Mike Moore would be the strongest Democratic candidate and the race would still be close.  However, he was a very popular Attorney General until 2004.  Mississippi is an interesting state really it would still go for the right type of Democrat, i.e. Moore and the African American population is rising.