MyDD :: Building A Senate Landslide

Building A Senate Landslide

by Chris Bowers, Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 12:55:50 PM EST

For this post, I will once again return to as Chuck Todd's analysis (emphasis mine):

The reality is that if one were to handicap the current Senate battle race-by-race, a 0-2 Democratic pickup would be very realistic. But as Charlie Cook has pointed out, Senate races never break evenly for both parties. The key for the party that's got that little breeze at the end is putting enough races in play to win all those toss-ups. In a neutral climate, the 0-2 Democratic pickup prediction would make sense. But it's hard to foresee a neutral 2006 environment. The makings for a Democratic advantage are brewing. There's no difference between netting three Senate seats and netting six or seven. Once the Democrats are in a position to net a third, it probably means all those slightly-leaning GOP seats are going their way and the gain will be closer to six than to two.

Given this analysis, building a potential Democratic landslide to retake the Senate would require two factors:

At least six very strong Democratic challenges to Republican held seats.
A numeric Democratic advantage of at least three when it comes to very strong challenges to Senate seats held by the other party.

How close are Democrats to building such a situation? In the past, I have listed eight strong Democratic challenges to Republican held seats, and seven serious Republican challenges to Democratic held seats. However, those numbers include a mix of already competitive races with potentially competitive races. Thus, to better monitor Democratic chances in the Senate, it would be better to separate the already competitive races from the potentially competitive ones, and look only at the already competitive races. Here goes:

Democratic Challenges to Republican held seats
Already Competitive	Potentially Competitive
Pennsylvania		       Montana
Ohio			       Nevada
Missouri			       Tennessee
Arizona 			       Virginia
Rhode Island		       Mississippi

In this analysis, an "already competitive" challenge is one where the Republican incumbent polls below 50% against an existing Democratic challenger. In all five cases I have identified, the Republican incumbent polls below 45% against an announced Democratic challenger, thus making all of them immediately very competitive. The five "potentially" competitive seats currently feature Republican incumbents who are either just above 50% (Montana, Nevada, Virginia), or actual / potential open seats where Democrats could potentially make gains but currently are not that close. Montana and Nevada are the best Democratic chances to move into the "already competitive" category. The other three still require a lot of work (or for Trent Lott to retire).

Republican Challenges to Democratic held seats
Already Competitive	Potentially Competitive
    Minnesota		       Florida
    Washington		       New Jersey
    Maryland		       Michigan
			       Nebraska
			       Vermont

Although Washington is listed here as an already competitive seat, Cantwell is actually polling higher (though still below 50%) against Gavick than any of the five Republican incumbents listed in the "already competitive" column for Democrats. It is also heartening that four of the eight seats listed here are "safe" blue seats in the partisan index, and two, Minnesota and Michigan, are lean-Democratic states. Thus, the potential for Republicans to gain more competitive seats is somewhat hampered, and inf act the potential for them to lose competitive seats in Washington and Maryland is actually realistic.

Still, currently Democrats only hold a five to three advantage in already competitive seats, meaning that we currently do not meet even the minimum requirements for a takeover in 2006. Further, the minimum requirements would not be enough for me to get my hopes up, as I would like at least seven already competitive seats and a numeric advantage of four before I really start to believe it is possible to retake the Senate, since it is not likely that we would win every close race even during a landslide year. Of course, we still have a year to change things, and the recruiting mo' is definitely on our side. An advantage of seven and four is definitely doable, so while if the elections were held today Democrats would not have a realistic shot at retaking the Senate, that may not be the case even a short time in the future.

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 24 Comments :: Post a Comment

you forget (1.00 / 2)

dollars to donuts if Brown is the OH Senate nominee he loses to DeWine.

We are so afraid of losing we keeping choosing losers to run.

by dayspring on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 01:09:24 PM EST

Re: you forget (none / 0)

Ahh yes, ad hoc attacks against A Democratic candidate. How could I forget such a thing.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 01:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you forget (none / 0)

I think that Brown/Hackett can beat Dewine.

We will win PA. Affleck or someone can win Virginia. Hard to say about Rhode Island but I think we can do it.

I hope that, should Tim Kaine not win the gov race, that he consider the Senate seat.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 01:26:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you forget (1.00 / 1)

Hackett stands for Democracy. Brown stands for the myth that the advertising infrastructure still pulls all the strings and wins elections. The same infrastructure that tried to get Dean last year.

Columbia school of journalism recorded the amazing number of slanted articles.

The only rational record of Brown being a fit candidate is the record of a yellow journalist, not a yellow dog. Chris - did you make it into the Democratic party? If you did, then surely you must be aware that without Hackett there would be no Oh 2 primary battle. He drew amazing numbers in the toughest places. Its like taking a soldier and throwing him into a firefight and he takes out the enemy, severely wounds the leader.. comes back alive.

Sure, the bimbo he was running against survived but only after they pulled KArl Rove down into it.
Did you see last night how Furcal kept trying to steal bases, and freaked out the pitching of the Astros? If it weren't for Clemens on the mound the Braves would be there in game 5. Worthy to note that Furcal succeeded in taking two bases. The Democratic party , was just like the batter on. Here's hacket on third and the democratic party is sending in a switch-hitter with a bad RBI?

No way. Go for hackett and sleep better at night.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 01:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you even know who Brown is? (3.00 / 1)

Don't give me bullshit argument that you learned by heart during the Dean campaign and that you are now apparently reciting at every opportunity.

Hackett is noone. I don't care if he isn't a professional politician. Saying that Bush is an SOB wins points on my book, but is not enough to be the best candidate.

Brown is progressive. He is right on every possible issue. Period.

Stop reciting your tirade.

by FrenchSocialist on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 03:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you even know who Brown is? (none / 0)

Sherrod Brown is a good man. From everything I've gathered, so is Paul Hackett.

Sherrod, I think, can win. Hackett, maybe, can win - he put up a great fight in a short race.

Either would be a good choice. Having been a constituent of Sherrod's, I can say that he would be a great choice, and it'd make me proud to be a Democrat to have a Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

by jkdism on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 03:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Absolute Best Metric for Dean (none / 0)

The Best metric for Dean is recruiting, right now. Can he attract people that really believe in America, and want to restore America to her proud self again?

Can Dr. Dean create a party that wins elections.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 01:23:10 PM EST

Barbara Radnofsky (none / 0)

I recognize that Texas is not on the map as far as competitive Senate races go, but I do wish people like you, Chris, would at least give a mention to Barbara Radnofsky when writing about the 2006 landscape. She's been on the campaign trail for over a year now, and has won the respect of Democrats across the state for all that she's been doing.

I'm told by one of her campaign people that she will be at a fundraising event in DC on November 8, for which Sens. Reid, Schumer, Stabenow, Durbin, and Levin, along with Texas Reps. Lloyd Doggett and Eddie Bernice Johnon have committed to attending. For a first-time candidate running against an entrenched incumbent, she's done a lot of good things. Take a look at Barbara Radnofsky and please don't overlook this race.

by kuff on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 02:10:41 PM EST

Re: Barbara Radnofsky (none / 0)

Kuff, that's great. We all love her. But competitive? Maybe if she was running against Corny.

by Eric in Texas on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 05:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barbara Radnofsky (none / 0)

Eric, I admitted that this race is not in the same class as the others. All I want is for people to know more about it, and about her. I want people to watch her exceed expectaions (as I feel confident she will) and think that taking out Cornyn in 2008 is not out of the question. I just want to see the Bowerses and Armstrongs and Koses acknowledge this race because it's being run by the kind of person they support.

by kuff on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 12:05:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barbara Radnofsky (none / 0)

Okay, agreed.

by Eric in Texas on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 09:56:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

your second bullet point (none / 0)

Although I think the most important point is right, I don't agree with the entire analysis. I think that the basic point behind Chuck Todd's analysis is that the outcomes of different elections are correlated, so they should not be analyzed independently. This makes sense as there are common factors which influence all of the races. On the other hand, I am not convinced that there is a discontinuity where we jump from 2 to 6 likely pickups. Moreover, I don't think that getting a third likely winner will make it more likely that others will win. That is to say, there are common factors which make it so that our candidates are likely to rise or fall together, but strong standing on the part of one candidate does not cause another candidate to be more likely to win. At least I don't know the mechanism for this, but perhaps you have a more specific idea. If anything, I would imagine that putting one of our candidates in a stronger poisition (and keeping other things equal) would reduce the probability that another one of ours would win (probably only slightly), as these candidates compete for common resources (fundraising, staff, etc.) This is consistent with the possibility that outcomes for our candidates would be positively correlated because of common causal factors, such as Bush's unpopularity.

I agree that we need some heuristic benchmarks to measure how we are doing, and the more of our candidates are competitive or ahead, the better, but I don't really think that your second bullet point is particulary compelling as a measure.

by crony on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 02:26:30 PM EST

Senate landslide (none / 0)

I think what they are saying is that in this (admittedly optimistic) scenario, just because Burns or Ensign is at 51 now doesn't mean he'll be protected if there is a wave on the generic ballot numbers like 2002 or 1994. Anybody remember wondering how the hell Coleman managed to win Minnesota in 2002?

by DownstateDem on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 02:40:37 PM EST

Here's a winning theme for us in 06... (none / 0)

There are too many issues, too many opinions. We need a feeling, not a huge list of specifics, to start a movement. Try this.

You can't call it terror if you're not afraid of it.

Doesn't it seem odd that a President who conducts foreign policy like he's trying to get in touch with his inner-cowboy would be so intent on turning his own country into a herd of spooked sheep?

But with Karl Rove curled up into a fetal ball awaiting the word of a certain grand jury, and the rest of the team either fending off the FBI or dusting off their curricula vitae, Bush is kind of on his own. So he's playing the hole card, the only thing that's ever worked for him. Be very, very afraid.

Terrorists, hurricanes, bio-agents, wild fires, housing bubbles, social insecurity, gay people getting married, be very, very afraid.

Now Bush is squawking about a military takeover when the Avian flu pandemic hits. How bad is it when we're afraid of chickens?...

Full article.

by The Muse on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 02:54:43 PM EST

Abramoff made Montana competitive (none / 0)

Burns is writing op-eds denying he is corrupt. Another Montanan in the Democratic caucus is a special gift from Jack Abramoff.

Surprising, to date Conrad Burns is the only Republican Senator up for re-election who has been caught up in the pay-for-play scandal. Surely Jack had more game in the Senate than just one guy from Montana.

It will be interesting to see if Abramoff begins to take any other Senators down with him. Exposure on Abramoff could almost single-handedly turn a race into a top-tier event.

by blogswarm on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 03:12:32 PM EST

Reality check (none / 0)

Let me say this again: the Senate playing field in 2006 favors the Republicans, not us.

Democrats are defending many more seats than Republicans this time. Democrats are defending three open seats to just one for the Republicans. Democrats are defending eight seats in red states; Republicans are defending just four in blue states.

Of the "potentially competitive" Republican held seats listed above, only Nevada passes the laugh test. The rest have partisan ID of near or above +20 for Republicans. Of the supposedly "already competitive" sats, Democrats have a very slim chance at winning Pennsylvania, and essentially none at the others. Chafee isn't going anywhere. The Ohio Democratic party is in disarray. Missouri and Arizona are strongly Republican and getting more so.

The Democratic defense is also much more precarious than this analysis lets on. The situation in the open seats is particularly dire. The GOP has a huge head start in getting behind a candidate in Minnesota, and the Democrats are likely to go with Klobuchar, who will have less chance of winning. The Democratic Party in Maryland, as in Ohio, has completely come off the rails. The Republicans will have a huge head start in New Jersey.

We need to stop being so cocky. we are going to be in the fight of our lives just to keep our heads above water. If we get too ambitious, there really will be a Senate landslide in 2006, but it won't be in our favor. And with that, we'll be handing the GOP a filibuster-proof majority.

by aretino on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 03:16:17 PM EST

Re: Reality check (none / 0)

I think the reality is somewhere in between your pessimism and the original post.

Yes, the Dems have more seats to defend and will have to make inroads into red states, but at the same time, there is momentum. And you need positive energy before it can happen. So I see nothing wrong with a little optimism. At the same time, I do think we have to take a close look at both Rhode Island and Minnesota.

Chaffee is really strong and we don't have good candidates now that Langevin has dropped out.

The Reps have a candidate that could beat ours and they have proven they can win there.

by exLogCabin on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 03:26:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality check (none / 0)

One clarification. I am not a pessimist, I just feel we are not being realistic about 2006.

Our chances in any given Senate cycle are shaped by what happened six years earlier. Democrats did very well in 2000, so we have already picked the low-hanging fruit. By all rights, it is the GOP which will do the cherry picking this time.

On the other hand, Democrats did very poorly in 2002 and 2004. We should expect to pick up seats in those cycles, especially in 2008.

In the long term, I think picking up seats is realistic. I just want to be in reach of a majority when we start the 2008 campaign.

by aretino on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 04:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I completely agree (none / 0)

Every Democratic blog is obscenely unrealistic regarding the senate and 2006. We already snagged the winnable states like Michigan and Washington in 2000. Every realistic look at 2006 from a year ago or earlier forecast exactly what you wrote in the previous post; we're on defense in 2006.

Big hint: everything tends to return to the beginning. Short term self-inflicted problems like the last few months don't pretend to reverse or derail the big picture realities. I'll be thrilled to break even or pick up one seat next year.

You can already tell we're in trouble when a Sherrod Brown is championed in Ohio. Typically incompetent Democratic handicapping. Sherrod Brown will run a standard campaign and lose a close race. It's not even worth following. You don't oust an incumbent in a red state via a blase challenger, not unless DeWine implodes like almost happened in Kentucky with Bunning. Hackett has a chance to screw up our gameplan and win by 5 points. Otherwise, I'm betting on DeWine and I'll win. Might as well continue to capitalize financially if we insist on nominating candidates who are just good enough to get you beat.

I'm from Nevada. The 2006 senate race doesn't come close to passing the laugh test. No one wants to take my word for it, and that's fine. I was posting in 2002 that national security concerns would trump Yucca Mountain as a priority for Nevadans in 2004. Got insulted every which way. Over the weekend I watched the weekly local political show in Las Vegas. The interesting aspect: both the host and Democratic consultant indicated Oscar Goodman has not shut the door on running for governor against Jim Gibbons. All three panelists agreed Ensign would win by walkover. Even the Democratic guy couldn't manage any phony hopes for Carter.

by jagakid on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 03:36:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Virginia (none / 0)

Here's a thought, though with a pessimistic premise: if Kaine loses next month to Kilgore by a small margin, why not run him against Allen? Will he be too damaged by Kilgore at that point? Maybe his name recognition will be high enough that he'd have a shot, as Ben Chandler did in that congressional district that I think he had lost in his gubernatorial race.

by leftist on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 04:08:44 PM EST

2006 US Senate Election Cycles (none / 0)

In 2006, There are 33 US Senate Seats up for grabs in 2006. 18 are held by Democrats and 15 are held by Republicans. Out of the 18 Democratic held Senate Seats up for Grabs in 2006. Democrats are strongly favored to win
1)California-Fienstien(D)
2)Connecticut-Lieberman(D)
3)Delaware-Carper(D)
4)Hawaii-Akaka(D)
5)Massachusetts-Kennedy(D)
6)New Mexico-Bingaman(D)
7)New York-Clinton(D)
8)North Dakota-Conrad(D)
9)Vermont-OPEN-Jeffords(I) Sen-elect Sanders(I).
10)West Virginia-Byrd(D)
11)Wisconsin-Kohl(D)
Democrats are slightly favored to win
1)Florida-Nelson(D)
2)Maryland-OPEN-Sarbanes(D)Sen-elect Cardin(D).
3)Michigan-Stabenow(D)
4)Minnesota-OPEN-Dayton-(D)-Sen-elect Klobachur(D).
5)Nebraska-Nelson(D)
6)New Jersey-OPEN-Corzine(D)Sen-elect Menedez(D).
7)Washington-Cantwell(D)
Out of the 15 Republican held US Senate Seats up for grabs in 2006. Republicans are strongly favored to win.
1)Indiana-Lugar(R)
2)Maine-Snowe(R)
3)Mississippi-Lott(R)
4)Nevada-Ensign(R)
5)Texas-Hutchison(R)
6)Utah-Hatch(R)
7)Virginia-Allen(R)
8)Wyoming-Thomas(R)
Republicans are slightly favored to win.
1)Arizona-Kyl(R)
2)Tennessee-OPEN-Frist(R)Sen-elect Corker(R)
Tossups
1)Missouri-Talent(R)Sen-elect McCaskill(D)???
2)Montana-Burns(R) Sen-elect Morrison(D)???
3)Ohio-DeWine(R) Sen-elect Brown(D)???
4)Rhode Island-Chafee(R)Sen-elect Whitehouse(D)??
Democrats are favored to win
1)Pennsyvlania-Santorum(R)Sen-elect Casey(D)

Democrats will gain 5 seats in the US Senate

by CMBurns on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 02:34:21 PM EST

West Virginia (none / 0)

Let's all knock on wood that West Virginia remains a safe seat -- there are, of course, scenarios where we need to defend that seat.

by Hauser on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 07:00:00 PM EST

Sherrod Brown for Senate (none / 0)

Having Sherrod Brown as our Party's nominee for U.S. Senate will greatly strengthen what is shaping up to be the strongest Democratic ticket in Ohio in over 20 years. Brown is articulate, personable, experienced in all campaign settings, knowledgeable about the issues, he enjoys campaigning and he brings a $2 million dollar warchest to his campaign. He can count on a battle-tested staff and a network of supporters around Ohio and the nation from his long career in public service. He's willing to work hard, and he's putting everything on the line.

I urge all Ohio Democrats and independents to do everything you can to support this exceptional candidate in a critical race.

by Ohio Dem on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 10:30:44 PM EST

Paul Hackett for Senate (none / 0)

Sherrod Brown will not be able to defeat Mike DeWine. Brown may be able to raise a lot of money but he is not the right person for the candidacy. Paul Hackett is a better choice because of his views. Hackett is a moderate overall and will be able to court independent voters. Paul Hackett is also from South western Ohio which will allow him to pick up votes in that highly conservative area. If you take a look at the polls you will see Hackett leading DeWine by over 8 points. Brown is losing to DeWine by two. Now I may not be a political genius but when it comes to picking a candidate you usually want to go with the one that is winning. Paul Hackett will be able to beat DeWine because he a far more popular candidate. Hackett will need less money and will probably need less commercials then Brown will. Hackett also has a better background that Brown. Hackett is a veteran of the war in Iraq and that appeals to many voters. Hackett can't be attacked on his voting record either because he hasn't held a position in the House or the Senate, Brown can. Hackett lost a close election in a highly conservative district and that will aid him in his race against DeWine. Hackett has the skills and the power to defeat one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate. We need to stop picking losers and start picking winners. Paul Hackett is an overall winner and can easily take down DeWine in the election of 2006.

by oaksmarts on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 07:44:08 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.