2006 Senate Elections Report: Handicapping the Races

[Bob Geiger]

As a Progressive covering the United States Senate, there's nothing I would love more than to predict a Democratic takeover of the Upper House and a return to the intended system of legislative oversight of the executive branch of the federal government. I would love to but, after studying the 33 Senate races for a few months, I'm reluctant to predict that a Democratic party so far down in their Senate numbers, can make up that much ground in one election.

It could happen but, well, let's take a look.

In the interest of giving you this information in reasonably digestible quantities -- there's only so many ways to make election analysis sexy and riveting -- I'm going to give you the basics of how the 2006 Senate races shape up, discuss which seats are pretty much locked-up already and where that leaves the overall picture leading to analysis of the pivotal races. On Tuesday, I'll go into the more exciting contests and what I see as the final outcome on November 7.

First things first: Article I, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the 100 Senators be divided into three "classes" for election purposes, with either 33 or 34 seats in those groups expiring every two years.

This year, 33 Senate seats have run their six-year course and, of those, there are 15 Republicans, 17 Democrats and one Independent. The current Senate roster stands at 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one Independent.

Please go here for a list of which Senate seats are up this year.

And here's how it breaks down:

When you start with the full 100 Senators and take away the 33 seats being contested, we hit election day in November with the remaining balance of the Senate set at 40 Republican and 27 Democrat -- a lousy and daunting view if you happen to be a Democrat.

This means that Democrats face the Sisyphean task of picking up 24 of the 33 contested seats to get to the 51 necessary for a controlling majority -- and we don’t want any stinkin' 50-50 ties with Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, waiting in the wings to break any deadlocks.

At first glance, those numbers make me want to bury my head in a bucket of red-state bourbon, so let's look at what it will take for Senate Democrats to get to 51.

Here's my take on what I call the "locks" on each side to retain office. These are people like Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) who could strangle a kitten on live television and still get reelected:

Democrats

• Daniel Akaka (D–HI): Finishing his second full term, Akaka was appointed in 1990 and has received over 70 percent of the popular vote in the last two elections. He will overcome the primary challenge from Lieberman-like Ed Case on September 23 and prevail in November.

• Jeff Bingaman (D-NM): Bingaman has been there for four terms, is leading Republican Allen McCulloch by big numbers in all polls and will easily make it to a fifth term.

• Robert Byrd (D-WV): He's just finishing his eighth full term -- yes, that's 48 years in the Senate -- and is a beloved elder with West Virginia voters. Like an athlete, if the 88-year-old Byrd stays healthy, he'll go all the way.

• Thomas Carper (D-DE): Carper's only served one term, easily winning his seat in 2000. But he's lucky his siding with Joe Lieberman over Democratic nominee Ned Lamont in Connecticut happened so late in the primary cycle or he may have been challenged in solidly-blue Delaware. But without a serious Democratic challenger, he's back in easily.
  

• Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Are you kidding me? The only person who could unseat her right now is her husband.

• Kent Conrad (D-ND): This guy is very popular in North Dakota and not seriously challenged this time -- he'll win without spending a dime. Though you've really got to wonder why the GOP can't find a viable candidate in a dark-red state like North Dakota.

• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): With the massive amount of money required, California is an extremely tough state in which to oust an incumbent. Despite little Progressive enthusiasm for Feinstein, she'll have no problems defeating little-known Republican Richard Mountjoy.

• Edward Kennedy (D-MA): Kennedy is the real deal who puts on the Progressive boxing gloves every day on the Senate floor and Massachusetts voters love him for that -- so do we.

• Herb Kohl (D-WI): Kohl's finishing his third full term and, despite being unwilling to step up to the plate and overtly support Lamont, will get broad backing at home and be easily reelected.

• Ben Nelson (D-NE): We Democrats may not like him very much, given that he makes Joe Lieberman look like Kennedy or John Kerry, but Nelson has quietly maintained among the highest home-state approval ratings of any Senator. He'll win easily.

• Bill Nelson (D-FL): Nelson's approval ratings have never been that great in Florida and the Democratic grassroots finds little to be excited about with him. On the other hand, conservatives don’t have much of a grudge against him and he has Republican challenger Katherine Harris working hard every day to make him look good. He'll win.

• Bernie Sanders (I-VT): Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders is running to replace Independent Jim Jeffords, who is retiring, and I stand a better chance of having Eva Longoria hit on me than Sanders does of losing to Richard Tarrant. Although Sanders will come in as an Independent, he will caucus with the Democrats so we count him here.

Republicans

• John Ensign (R-NV): Ensign's approval rating among Nevada voters seldom strays far from 50 percent in either direction, but Democratic challenger Jack Carter is simply not going after Ensign hard enough and hanging Bush, Cheney, Rove and the Iraq war around his neck like a millstone. Most analysts are calling this solidly for Ensign and I reluctantly agree -- at the moment. An August 28 Zogby/Wall Street Journal poll showed the gap narrowing significantly with Ensign at 48 percent to 45 percent for Carter. I'm going to be watching this one very carefully over the next few weeks and, if Carter makes some bold moves, this one may become competitive. As of this moment, it's not.
  

• Orrin Hatch (R-UT): Utah is a state where George W. Bush still has a 59 percent approval rating. Barring a challenge from the far right, do you think Hatch, who's finishing his fifth term, isn’t elected for life?

• Kay Hutchison (R-TX): They're not real big on change in Texas and Hutchison won in 1994 and 2000 with 61 percent and 65 percent, respectively. Democrat Barbara Ann Radnofsky is a decent candidate but Hutchison is amazingly unhurt by her proximity to Bush and her Democratic challenger's poll numbers haven't moved a lot since January.

• Trent Lott (R-MS): The former Majority Leader could have a confederate flag and noose collection at his Senate Floor desk and blast "Dixie" on a boombox during debate and still have a 65 to 70 percent approval rating in Mississippi. He's finishing his third full term and, sadly, will be back again.
  

• Richard Lugar (R-IN): Lugar is wrapping up his fifth term, won his last election by two-thirds and is essentially running unopposed -- enough said.

• Olympia Snowe (R-ME): Snowe is so popular in Maine that the only person who could beat her is Susan Collins -- and Collins is already in the Senate.

• Craig Thomas (R–WY): Wyoming is damn near as conservative as Utah, Thomas has always maintained good approval ratings and Democrats just flat-out don't win much in that state. The GOP retains this seat.

Assuming those predictions come true, this leaves us, whether we like it or not, at a starting point of 47 Republicans and 39 Democrats before the real heavy lifting of the competitive races starts.

After the long weekend, we'll have a look at those 14 races, the ones that will decide what the balance of power will be in the Senate until 2008, and venture an educated guess on what the final tally will be.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

[Lasher]

1. Awaiting the next edition with eager anticipation

Very good observations. If the latest WSJ/Zogby poll is reliable, there might be something good going on in Nevada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_United_States_Senate_election%2C_2006#Opinion_Polls

[IWantAChange]

2. BG - Udaman - succinct and intelligent

can't wait for the next installment

[emlev]

3. Will you be addressing how disenfranchisement and dirty e-voting tricks

and such like should be factored in? Your analysis so far is very interesting; however, we can't ignore the lengths the GOP will go to to retain its grip around the throat of this nation.

[truedelphi]

4. Perhaps not what we want to hear but excellently

Reported

[Redneck Socialist]

5. Good stuff.

I eagerly await the next installment.

When I first joined DU this was the sort of thing I hoped to find, but alas, for a board that is ostensibly about politics there is little actual discussion of the nuts and bolts of political campaigns. Plenty of talk about personalities and the outrage of the day, but disturbingly little about the mechanics of getting someone into (or out of) office.

[SteppingRazor]

6. Here's my own Senate picks...

http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_dansweeney/2006/04/my_senate_picks_for_the_record.html

As you can see from the URL, I wrote this entry back in April, but I still largely stand by it, as it has somewhat stood the test of time (ahem, apart from my embarrassing prediction in Connecticut, it should be said). Anyway, I certainly still stand by the outcome. I think we'll pick up 4 or 5 seats in the Senate, meaning the GOP will continue control of it.

The House, however, is a different story. I think we'll pick up between 13 and 17. Since we need 15 to take over, that means I've got no prediction for who will control the House. It's anybody's game.

[ElboRuum]

7. 12 out of 14 for a majority...

Well, while I'd like to see it, I doubt it's going to happen.

What I WOULD however like to see is at least 2/3 of the seats to go to Dems. Let's face it. While 1994 wasn't exactly a blue-letter-day in Dem politics, it was only the beginning of a rightward tide in this country from the standpoint of the Beltway. 12 years have gone by and seen the Republicans only strengthen their position in Congress, and we aren't going to turn that around in a day, regardless of how many of those same Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.

I do believe we will make gains. Even those small gains will rachet up resistance against Republican policies in the next few years. What will become vitally important is that we use those gains to our advantage and show the American people that voting Democrat is a POSITIVE thing. It has always been my presumption based upon the legacy of the Democratic party with respect to Congress that the reason why people seem to be 'trusting' Republicans more these days has nothing to do with the old memes: higher taxes, pork, blah, blah, blah. It has to do with the fact that when charged with making a progressive stand that they ostensibly campaign on, they hit the Beltway and become inculcated into the "career politician" mode, where it's more about them than about us.

Republicans have done very little as the custodians of their base. Have working class families, families with a strong tradition of military service, or any of the typically Republican voting bloc (even the far fringe right) seen benefit one out of the last six years? No, but they have done one thing correctly: they have represented the anti-progressive, pro-military stands that they campaigned on VOCALLY on the floors of the Senate and the House. Republicans feel represented. Democrats have had particular cause to feel decidedly unrepresented until very recently.

We must continue this demand of Democrat politicians and make their continued service contingent upon continued vocal opposition to the fringe right and neoconservative agendae.

I know it is difficult to put yourself out there, stand up and be counted, when there is no way given circumstances that you have a prayer of succeeding, as it has for Democrats in Congress over the past few years. But it is clear that there are forces in this country which hold a benificent future for the people of this country in high contempt. Those we elect MUST represent us forcefully. Perhaps some gains, modest though they may end up being, will reinvigorate the spirits of those we elected. Maybe a lesser perception of mandate for a Republican regime will give them the courage to get the wallflowers off the wall and into the battle.

[cabral]

8. Great, please more of this...

[civildisoBDence]

9. Put the effort and resources into House races

that can be won. The Senate has traditionally been more elitist/Republican, the House more diverse/Democratic anyway.

If a groundswell of opposition to DUHbya and the neocons combines with apathy and low turnout among Republicans, Democrats may be swept into power in both houses--but chances are that we can take the House and a few Senate seats in '06, then take aim at a Senate majority and/or the White House in '08.

News and commentary, left to right

[Independent_Liberal]

10. It would be cool if we could get a 60 seat majority.

Then we could block filibusters. Wouldn't that be awesome?

:)

[Divine Discontent]

11. 5th recommendation, you're on the greatest page

nice job, I enjoyed the read. we MUST win the Carter vs. Ensign battle to get control back, I can't see how we'd take control of the Senate being so far down without Carter surprising, the big moderate Dems like Wes Clark, Barrack, etc, (and even John E. at the end) should campaign repeatedly for him along with the tossup seats.

[AX10]

12. We can win both houses. Remember, no one expected...

the GOP to sweep into power in 1994.

[Perry Mason]

13. Kay Bailey Hutchinson needs a trip to Boot Town

I would love to see this sorry excuse for a senator booted out of office. She is a tool of the corporate warlords who presently control the federal government. After taking hundreds of thousands in "campaign contribution" bribes from the insurance industry in her 1994 campaign, she voted against national healthcare immediately upon taking office. That rather makes her a prostitute, doesn't it?

And as a matter of policy, neither she nor her staff respond in any fashion to letters/calls/emails that are not from registered Republicans.

Isn't that taxation without representation?

Texans would be better represented by roadkill in the Senate than this useless waste of flesh.

[pat_k]

14. Cook Report Toss Ups: 6 Fascist (Rep), 1 Anti-Fascist (Dem)

http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2006_sen_ratings_aug16.pdf

Must Win:
MO: McCaskill in McCaskill v. Talent
MT: Tester in Tester v. Burns
OH: Brown in Brown v. DeWine
PA: Casey in Casey v. Santorum - PA
RI: Sheeler or Whitehouse in TBD v. Chafee
TN Ford in Ford v. Corker

Must Keep Dem:
MN Klobuchar in Klobuchar v. Kennedy (Likely Repub nominee primary 9/12)

If you can contribute to any or all of these folks, go to http://www.actblue.com/directory/search?q=federal-senate&state=">Act Blue and do it today!


Others in need of our support (as repugnant as they may be, they are still anti-fascists)

Lean Dem (i.e., at risk Dems)
MI: Stabenow
NE: Nelson -
NJ: Menendez -
WA: Cantwell -
MD: Cardin or Mfume (to replace Sarbanes)