Talk Elections

Since everybody else seems to have jumped in with their breakout of what 2004 means, I guess I'll jump in too..

Part I - The Senate - A quiet GOP Revolution?

Unlike the House and the Presidency, The senate is the one elected body where the GOP has actually built it's self up a long term, strategic advantage.

Lets do it by the numbers.

If we designate a state Bush won by 5%+ as a "natural" GOP state, and a state Kerry won by 5%+ as a "natural" Dem state, what would the senate look like?

There are 25 states, for a total of 50 seats where the GOP candidate "should" win.
By contrast, there are only 13 States where Kerry won by 5+%, for a "natural" Dem base of just 26 seats.

Indeed if we assume that states that were within 5% at the presidential level will normally break 50/50 at the Senate level, the "Natural" Senate would be 62 GOP / 38 Dems.

Of course, the 5% rule is utterly arbitrary.  If you use 10% as a threshold for a state being a "base" state, then for example the GOP has a 42 to 14 advantage, if you use 3% the GOP has a 54 to 34 advantage...

Needless to say, there are state by state exceptions.  "Republican" Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island is an anomaly that will likely end when Chafee dies or steps down, as will Democrat Byrd in West Virginia, but no matter how you look at it, in the Senate, the GOP has a substantial structural advantage.

This advantage BTW has very little to do with the popular vote - The GOP just happens to be strong in a bunch of the small states.  The blame or credit for this GOP Senate advantage goes to Jefferson and Madison not Bush and Kerry.

What is more daunting for a Demnocratic perspective, it that the GOP has more "natural" room to grow in the senate.

On the GOP side, the only Senators who are really at a substantial natural disadvantage are Chaffee, Collins, and Snowe. - Collins and Snowe are actually quite entrenched and if either lost it would be considered a substantial upset, but they are both running against the tide. 

In Maine a "generic" Democrat will usualy beat a "generic" Republican - It takes either the power of incumbancy or a very strong individual candidate (or both) to pull it out for the GOP.

Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Hampshire the GOP has 6 out of 6 senators - The "Natural" order of things in those three states - a "generic GOP versus a "generic" dem would normally be either 3/3 or maybe 4/2.

In short - the GOP holds about 6 senate seats they "Naturally" should not hold.

By contrast, the Dems are vastly more vulnerable in the Senate.

The Dems hold 6 Senate seats (Nelson in Nebraska, Dorgan and Conrad in North Dakota, Byah in Indiana, Johnson in South Dakota, Baukas in Montana) where Bush won by 20+ % - Now all six of these Senators are, as individuals, pretty safe (Johnson likely the most vulnerable) but over time as these folks retire, we can expect the GOP to win most or all of them.  Just as a "generic" Den "should" win Rhode Island, a "generic" GOP should win North Dakota.

Additionally, 5 more Democratic sseats exist in states Bush carried by 10% or more: Pryor and Lincoln in Arkansas, Byrd and Rockefeller in West Virginia, and Landreau in Louisiania.

Over time, in open contests, again the GOP will likely win more than they lose here. 

In short, there are 11 Democratic Senate seats in states the GOP "should" win, versus just 3 GOP seats in states the Dems "should" win.

At the Senate level, the math looks rather bleak for the Dems actually.

The Presidency - Still "flip a coin"

Unlike the Senate, Dem prospects in the Presidency are still pretty good.  For reasons similar to the Senate, the GOP does have a modest structual advantage +/- 20 EVs or so, but this 20 EVs is far, far less than the difference between a good candidate and a bad one.

.... to be continued...





()

Long live the GOP Senate! :-)

Applying your analysis to the 1972 election, we have 97 "natural" Republicans.  The 1984 election gives us 96 "natural" Republicans.

You're twisting his criteria into something it's not, but even if we're going to do that, you're still wrong because there were a lot of close States in those presidential elections.

The States he has listed as Republican are, for the most part, naturally GOP; and vice versa for the Democrats. The main one I would disagree with is West Virginia.

Five points is close. He has Florida listed as a battleground, notice.

This election wasn't some fluke landslide. The States that went heavily for Bush, are, for the most part, fundamentally GOP. And vice versa.

In 1972, Nixon won 48 states by at least 6 points, and a 49th point by 5 and change points, while losing 1 state by over 6 points, giving us 97 "natural" GOP senators.

In 1972, the Democrats *gained* in the Senate, ending up with 56 Dems, 42 GOP, and 2 who knows.

In 1984, the Democrats also gained in the Senate, ending up with 47 Dems, 53 GOP.

Is there a reason you deleted your post? I know 1984 had several close States.

More importantly, why are you responding to the minor point and ignoring the main one? This election wasn't some fluke landslide. The States that went heavily for Bush, are, for the most part, fundamentally GOP. And vice versa.

You are not accounting, as I carefully and clearly do, for the power of incumbancy.  Maine, for example, is leaning towards being a "natural" Democratic state, yet they have 2 GOP senators in Collins and Snowe.

North Dakota is a solid GOP state presidentially, yet Conrad and Dorgan are fairly safe Dems.

The "natural" rule really only applies to open seats, and given the extended careers and 6 years election cycles, the number of open seats is fairly limited.  The incumbant, regardless of party and state, usually wins in the Senate.  Other than Daschle, I think all the incumbants won in 2004 in the senate if I am not mistaken. -

The Senate, more than any other body, has a vast power of incumbancy, it is very unlikely the Senate will every get all that close to it's "natural" breakout for that reason.

Iowa, for example is very very close at the presidential level.  But both Harkin (D) and Grassley (R) are basically bomb proof in their seats.  It is difficult to project a scenario short of some truly shocking scandal, where Harkin gets defeated for example.

By contrast, Chaffee in Rhode island is a matter of "when" the seat goes Democratic, not "if".  With the exception of an entrenched incumbant, or a truly major scandal, or a very large mismatch between the quality of the Candidates, the Dems should get both seats in Rhode Island.

Similarly, a "generic" GOP candidate will usually beat a "generic" DEm in North Dakota.

Why is this part 1 of 3? Are you going to do the House and Presidency too?

It seems to me that the one problem with this analysis is the oversimplification of the electoral process and of the parties.  All things aside, yes, a "generic" GOP candidate and a "generic" Dem candidate, if the election is extremely boring and mundane on both sides, will probably follow the rules laid out.  However, generic candidates don't exist (you can't really even start to compare, say, Bayh and Boxer, just because they're in the same party) and races are very rarely extremely boring and mundane on both sides.  Pretty much every race except for those in the most extremely partisan states are decided by who is the better candidate, not simply by which party the candidate is from.  As people have noted in the past, state politics can be very different from national politics.

I do recognize that this analysis is not meant to address fine details such as these, however, so this is mainly just a note rather than a critique of your analysis.

So far this is no surprise.

The GOP draws its strength from smaller states, and the Senate was designed to protect the interests of smaller states (or rather, to give them disproportionate power). So it is no surprise that the GOP would have an extra advantage in the Senate.

The most frustrating thing for Democrats is not the Senate but the House, where extreme gerrymandering in large states such as PA, MI, FL and TX could give the GOP a larger advantage than is "natural".

For example, going by percentages in the Bush-Kerry matchup, the House should be around 221-210 GOP, not 232-201.

It is important to remember that the Democrats ran John Kerry, who could not get elected to anything in the South. States like Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida will vote for a moderate Democrat, it's not shocking. Also, the Democrats have won open seats in the last 8 years in many states that currently trend GOP.

Of course you are correct.

In maybe 20 out of the 50 states, in an open race without an incumbant, the better candidate wins in the Senate.

In Utah, the Dems would have to run a very very strong candidate to beat a proverbial GOP "ham sandwich"

In Massechusetts, if the Dems run something short of the village idiot, they will usually prevail.

But in Pennsylvania or Ohio or Florida, in an open race the better candidate, regardless of party, will usually prevail. - I am just saying that at the margins, the GOP has an advantage in the senate right now, and that over time and many races, even a small advantage adds up. 

The Casino's in Vegas have a "edge" of under 2% at the Blackjack tables, a 2% that seems to add up rather nicely over time.

List of Open seats/Pickups won by the Dems in the last 8 years.... ??

It's a fairly short list actually...

Cantwell in Washington
Stabenow in Michigan
Kohl in Wisconsin
Carnahan in Missouri
Schumer in New York


I am sure I am missing more than a few... help me out here....but the list is shortish...

This could be a natural 'drift' from a previous re-alignment.  I'm very big on the V. O. Key theory that re-alignment is basically a 4-8 year affair.  1978-84 was the last real realignment.

55 R / 45 D

1998:
Schumer in New York
Lost Illinois

55 R / 45 D

1999:
Pick up of Georgia by death

54 R / 46 D

2000:
Cantwell in Washington
Stabenow in Michigan
Carnahan in Missouri
Carper in Deleware
Nelson in Florida
Dayton in Minnesota
Lost Virginia, Nevada

50 R / 50 D

2001:
Jeffords switch
50 D / 49 R / 1 I

2002:
Pryor in Arkansas
Lost Minnesota (by death), Missouri, Georgia

51 R / 48 D / 1 I

2004
Salzaar in Colorado
Obama in Illinois
Lost NC, SC, FL, GA, LA, SD

55 R / 44 D / 1 I

Nelson in Florida
Pryor in Arkansas
Salazar in Colorado

All GOP states

The 'safety' that Democrats like Conrad have historically enjoyed has been the conjunction of several interlocking factors:

First, the Democrats have controlled either the Presidency or at least one of the Houses of Congress from 1955 = 2003.  Hence, they had the ability to deliver the pork for their constitutents.

Second, until the rise of the 'new' media, most voters in the states involved were largely ignorant of the actions of their Senators/Congressmen (except for highly publicized pork projects).

Third, historically challengers in these jurisdictions have been starved of adequate funding to contest the elections.  The money bags in these areas tend to be only interested in tax breaks/subsidies for their interests, and not in other issues.  Recently the GOP has developed the ability to provide adequate seed money for candidates without reliance on local money bags.

Fourth, the Republicans have developed a 'turnout' system which is especially critical in off (Presidential) year elections.  The Democrats have been relying on the likes of Soros, who can deliver in big city states, but is not effective in rural/small town states.

That being said, I think the GOP may 'blow it' by failing to take effective action on immigration.  People do NOT want to have illegals 'legalized,' they want illegal immigration stopped, and illegals expelled (even Hillary Clinton understands this).

Ok - Let's use your list, I think I basically proves my points...

1998:

Schumer in New York => A Pretty Good Dem beat a Strong GOP (Mr Alfonse D) => New York is a Natural Dem State.

Lost Illinois => A fluke - Mosley Braun was, well, less than a great candidate... to put it mildly... Mosley Braun versus Alan Keyes! - Now that would be a race!

55 R / 45 D

1999:
Pick up of Georgia by death

54 R / 46 D

2000:

Cantwell in Washington => Washington swing to lean dem state, no surprise, a Multi-Millionair in a dem leaning state beats a tired old GOP candidate... not a shock...

Stabenow in Michigan => Michigan swing to lean dem state, versus average Incumbant (Abraham) Mild surprise...

Carnahan in Missouri => A deadman (Carnahan versus a far right lightning rod in Ashcroft) Not a shocker by any means, the race was very close, and some activities in St. Louis were... interesting...

Carper in Deleware => Deleware swing to lean dem state, no surprise, I miss Toby Roth, he represented the very best of the GOP. :(

Nelson in Florida => A close state where Nelson was a stronger candidate than McCollum

Dayton in Minnesota (Rod Gramms - Right wingnut candidate in a moderate to liberal state)

Lost Virginia, Nevada

50 R / 50 D

2001:
Jeffords switch
50 D / 49 R / 1 I

2002:
Pryor in Arkansas (Scandal plagued GOP candidate)
Lost Minnesota (by death - Race was very close prior to Death BTW),

Missouri (A close one, GOP had a B+ candidate too)
Georgia (Natural GOP State)

51 R / 48 D / 1 I

2004
Salzaar in Colorado (Salazar was ther better candidate than Coors in a close state)

Obama in Illinois (Great Candidate versus nutjob in a Dem state => blowout)

Lost NC (Fairly equal candidates => GOP victory)

SC (Base GOP state - A marginal (at best) GOP candidate wings by 10+)

FL (A marginally better Dem candidate barely lost in a marginally GOP state)

GA (One Republican replaced another)

LA, (First GOP Senator in a zillion years)

SD (A  Dem in SD senate is an anomaly)

55 R / 44 D / 1 I

Excuse me.

Zeller Miller was a conservative Democrat, who was replaced by a conservative Republican.

Johnny Isakson is actually probably more liberal on social issues, but not so much on economic issues.

Also, John Edwards picked up a Senate seat from Lauch Faircloth in N.C. in 1998.

Oh right... Zell is a Democrat... I forgot... :)

Next thing you know you'll be telling me Spector is a Republican...

Good point.  I had fotgottern about old Lauch, last Senator to give Jesse Helms a run for being the most conservative senator...

Clinton in New York

Yes and I'm sure that nothing... interesting... happend out in the Ozarks...2002:


Who was beaten pretty badly for an incumbent: 54/46. Arkansas can't be treated as a Republican state IMO


It was close, but Wellstone would almost certainly have pulled through IMO... he was pretty popular in rural areas.


Only because of those damn suburbs... ;-)
Seriously though, the reason why Cleland lost was because Chambliss ran an extremely dirty campaign (whether anyone thinks it was somehow justified or not, that's not the point) not because of any natural GOP leanings etc.


No party has held that seat for more than one term in a row since Sam Ervin. Creepy, eh?


Interestingly, it seems as though the LA Republicans thought that if it got into a runoff, Vitter would have lost. Not the point o/c


Hardly. Ask McGovern.

Vorlon, your assumption that the percentage Bush won in a state in 2004 provides a definitive measure of how Republican that state is seems arbitrary to me.  If any election was skewed by very specific factors not reflecting voters normal partisan leanings it was 2004 - due to the whole terrorism sham and the war.

Selecting any presidential election as a template for a Senate analysis is arbitrary and as likely as not to be misleading, but I would guess that 2000 would be a lot more likely to yield anecdotal reasonable results.

What would that look like?

The interesting part of Vorlon's analysis has little to do with the Presidential preferences of the states. The Reagan era cemented the Republican presidential majorities in the South, for instance. However, the 80's continued to see Democrats elected to Congress from those states that supported Reagan's national agenda.

The changes to Congress came in two waves. The House saw its party realignment to match national policy occur in the 1994 election. There have been relatively minor changes in the House since then, despite three presidential elections and two off-year cycles.  Barring a significant change by one of the two parties nationally, there doesn't seem to be any factor to move the House significantly in the next few cycles.

The Vorlon's analysis addresses the Senate. One interpretation may be that this is the last branch to feel the Reagan, then Gingrich, revolution. As noted, the Senate is slow to change, by design, and isn't affected by decennial census results.

The House is a really different kettle of fish. 

In almost all the states there is enough of a division of power that the states didn't get gerrymanderd to help any one party after the 2000 census (Texas being the notable exception) - but the degree to which they were gerrymandered in a bi-partisan Incumbant protection effort is rather stunning.

Some rather stunning numbers:

House races decided by less than 10% => 18 out of 435 (under 5%)
House races decided by less than 5% => 9 (barely 2%)

The GOPO has had a 230ish to 205ish majority now for 6 straight elections and the "stability" is due almost exclusively to the gerrymandering.

There are about 210 "safe" GOP house seats and about 190 "safe" Dem seats in the House,

These are seets where it would take a combination of scandal, plus a strong and well financed opponent to knock the incumbant out.

Both sides have lots of whiz kids with computers and the post 2000 boundries in the House are designed to protect incumbants to a degree that is just stunning.

The Senate is where the real "action" is - you cannot, after all, Gerrymander an entire state :)

Vorlon, are you going to do part 2 and 3 of this?

I agree with you in your basic thesis.

However, IF current trends continue (vis a vis population) the Republicans shoud pick up around nine seats in 2012 (reapportionment and redistricting).

If you take a look at the areas losing population or growing far slower than the national rate, Democrats in the aggregate do better in these areas (there are Republican rural areas which are shrinking or growing slowly, but they don't loom as large population wise as the Democrat areas)

The areas growing significantly faster than the national average tend to be pretty stongly Republican.

Another factor to look at is the 'bench' of both parties in the marginal districts.  A generation ago, the Democrats had a significant advantage in this area.  Today, the parties are about equally provided in this area.

I am also curious to learn how the party fund raising will work in the next eighteen months.  While the Democrats did reasonably well this past cycle, with the Republicans gaining seats and holding the Presidency I suspect a lot of the 'smart money' will favor the Republicans.

Who was beaten pretty badly for an incumbent: 54/46. Arkansas can't be treated as a Republican state IMO

=>>Arkansas is kinda transitional actually, the are fairly GOP presidentially now, but they still have strong "dixiecrat" roots locally.


==>>Minnesota is now a legitimate "battleground" state.  The Dem/DFL roots are soooo deep that the Dems have a slight edge, but the GOP has a legitimate shot in every race if they have a decent Candidate.

Minnesota is aslo the only state that is "backwards" in the sense that the GOP does well in the urban areas, while the Dems do better ruraly - the opposite of the national trend.


Only because of those damn suburbs... ;-)
Seriously though, the reason why Cleland lost was because Chambliss ran an extremely dirty campaign (whether anyone thinks it was somehow justified or not, that's not the point) not because of any natural GOP leanings etc. 

Ralph Reed did a stunning job organizationally in Georgia, really , really truly amazing.  They just blew the doors off all the turnout models.


No party has held that seat for more than one term in a row since Sam Ervin. Creepy, eh?


Interestingly, it seems as though the LA Republicans thought that if it got into a runoff, Vitter would have lost. Not the point o/c


Hardly. Ask McGovern.

No question that in states like CA and IL the pro-incumbent gerrymanders were striking. It's interesting that a in IL one could have had a fairly ungerrymandered map that still would have elected the same Reps, but they would have had to work a bit more at it. It also would lead to a real contest when the seats opened up.

It would be interesting if the Congress acted like they used to and set rules for districts. Some of those rules included the elimination of multimember districts in 1842. Congress has avoided the phrase "compact" in defining districts, but a simple rule like requiring districts to not split Census Tracts, would be a powerful tool to eliminate the worst gerrymanders.

Of course, given that big states are using gerrymanders to protect the incumbents, a weakening of that power seems unlikely. However, much like in 1842, a few states moving like TX, might prompt some rule making. At that time AL switched to multi-member districts to favor Democrats, but other Democrats around the country became worried that the Whigs could respond in some northern states. The prospect that current procedures can turn out incumbents might make a compelling case for some now serving to enact protective rules.

I don't really think that Arkansas does trends (although it has backed the winner in every Presidential election from 1972 onwards. And likes local candidates) and the assertion that it's fairly GOP presidentially now, rests on the assumption that the last two Presidential elections are somehow a perfect indicator of partisanship (something that has sod all evidence in favour of it and plenty against) rather than a perfect indicator of what people in East Carolina or wherever think about George W Bush (and even then it isn't perfect...)
If it's treated as "transitional" it's been that way for over 30 years. Which makes no sense at all.


It's actually the suburban areas.
Interestingly, MN was one of the few states that last year's Presidential elections was fairly close to actual partisanship (which is why you had all those rural counties flipping to Kerry)


Also true (but related to that ugly ever expanding blob called Atlanta Suburbia...)

Oklahoma hasn’t been mentioned…

Then again the race there proves Vorlon’s point I guess, very strong Dem candidates got soundly beat by a “Rightwing Nut-Job”… Alaska would be another case where an extremely strong Democrat was beaten by a mediocre and discredited Republican.       

If the Oklahoma Senate election had been in the Mid Terms, Carson would have won... there was a huuuuuuge Evangelical and/or Fundamentalist turnout (Bush won every county in Oklahoma... including the east central coal counties that Gore won... though he won those by small margins) in Okie last year.

I don't know about that.  Coburn did win by nearly 12%.  Two things that would make me think otherwise that you need to take into consideration.

1.  Bileyeu (Green Party cand.) took nearly 5% of the vote and I'm pretty sure that in Oklahoma nearly all of that came from Carson.  Unless she's not in the race, that makes a bigger margin for Carson to overcome even if Evangelical turnout isn't so high.

2.  Carson and Coburn in the House were from the same district, those east-central coal counties that Gore won in 2000.  Both were extremely popular there (Coburn even maybe more so).  I don't think Coburn percentages would have declined much even in a non-Presidential race in these areas because of that.

Remember, most people thought Inhofe couldn't win either because he was too right-wing as well.  He's gotten about the same 55% in both of his races.

Coburn was the only Republican who could win that race because of point #2.  Most moderate Republicans still don't realize this.

Yeah, Coburn (despite certain... er... not exactly moderate or entirely sane remarks) is a pretty strong candidate. Regional stuff seems to matter a lot in Oklahoma... If the GOP had run some Tulsa or Oklahoma City politician (like the guy that lost the nomination to Coburn... Humphries?) they wouldn't have won many Conservative Democrat voters as Coburn did and Carson would *probably* have won last year.
In a MidTerm year Carson v Coburn would probably be a tossup, but I think that Carson would pull it off. Maybe not. Certainly would have been a lot closer.

I can agree with those statements, even though I still Coburn would have won under that scenario.  :)

Carson attacked too hard against Coburn personally in the end.  It alienated some voters and probably cost him another 3-5% or so.

Can any of you tell me something about that Green woman?
And why does a Green poll 5% in a highly contested race in Okie of all places?

IIRC she's not exactly on the right side of sane

Ah yes, that explains it. Sanity is not an electoral asset in Oklahoma, as viz.Coburn[/sarcasm]

Do you think Carson can beat Inhofe in '08?

um, Mark Dayton?

This was great, Vorlon.  I look forward to the next 2 parts. 

Yeah, where's the rest of that?

Vorlon, very good analysis. I would like to make one point though.

There is a difference between a state like Arkansas and a state like North Dakota. Both states have 2 Democratic senators. Both states were won by Bush with ease.

However.

Arkansas used to be a pretty Democratic state. It was the MOST Democratic state in 1992, the only state in that electino to give any candidate an absolute majority of the votes. It has voted Democratic in most electinos throughout the twentieth century. But it has recently moved more and more towards the Republicans and now seems to be firmly in the GOP camp. It's reasonable to expect this to have an effect on the senators there. The same kind of analysis could be done on West Virginia.

But North Dakota is a different story. See, ND has NEVER been Democratic. It has voted Republican in almost every election since the FDR era. This means that the 2 senators there managed to get elected in an environment about as hostile to them as it is now. There is really nothing inherent saying they will go Republican.

Therefore, I think that the kind of analysis Vorlon does should only be applied to states with a significant recent trend. This excludes the following for the Democrats: South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana and Wisconsin.

For the Republicans: Rhode Island (though this is a rather special case) and Pennsylvania.

This leaves us with, as I see it, 5 vulnerable Democrats in Arkansas, West Virginia and Louisiana v 4 (5) vulnerable Republicans in Maine, Ohio, New Hampshire and (Oregon).

Basically, the trend should pretty much cancel out. Secindly, there seems to have been a historical fact that the senate has tended to reflect the national trend more or less, which suggests that these kind of analyses lead nowhere... ;)

So what does everyone think of this now?


Not even those really. Much as I dislike them, most real suburban areas in Minnesota are only slightly GOP leaning at most. Those uber-GOP counties on the fringes of the metro are basically giant messes of subdivisions in the middle of wheat fields and farms. Area-wise (but not population-wise), they are still predominantely rural.


Somewhat true, but while Kerry improved among Gore in rural Minnesota, he still underperformed in historically DFL areas, he still lost Traverse county for instance and barely won Koochiching and Kittson. Even Hatch did better than Kerry in much of rural Minnesota, he even carried Marshall county (which voted over 57% for Bush)

That said though, the fact is, in a close race the Democrat's strength in rural Minnesota is not going to be the deciding factor:

()

That's a map of a Democratic victory.

()
()

Maps of Republican victories.

2008 - Dems pick up seats b/c the GOP has more seats to defend.

Maybe the Senate is GOP in the long-term, but not for a while.

He's right only if we take Presidential results to be the be-all, end-all of partisanship, which I don't. Someone made the point earlier that Arkansas is fairly strongly Republican, but it's not. It has two Democratic Senators, (as of 2007) a Democratic governor, 3 of 4 Representatives are Democrats and the Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature and improved their standing in 2006.

Now, at the Presidential level Arkansas is at least weakly Republican. (I wouldn't go so far as to call it strongly Republican; more so than Colorado or Iowa, but not strongly.) However, one of the advantages the Democrats have had in recent years, and to some extent for a long time, is that the Democrats are much better at appealing to local populations than the Republicans.

Democrats run localized campaigns for House and for Senate and are willing to tailor their platforms and their candidates to districts and states, and then those Representatives and Senators are given more or less free reign by the establishment to be moderate or even somewhat conservative on all but a few issues. The same is not true for the Republicans; while the Republicans have kept some holdovers from their days of classical liberalism (Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee were good examples), for the most part Republicans run doggedly conservative candidates everywhere they can find them, even at their own expense (see AZ-08 in 2006). Now, this is not entirely or even mostly the party's fault since it is the Republican proletariat, not the Republican elite, that choose the candidates in primaries, but among Republicans the ultraconservatives are the most active members in party organizations everywhere, even in the Northeast where non-incumbent Republicans really can't win. Sometimes moderate Republicans stick around for a while, but they almost never go without primary challenges (Toomey in 2004, Laffey in 2006).

Now, I know a bunch of people are going to leap on me shouting "Lieberman, Lieberman", but let me explain my reasoning. For one, Lamont could have won, could have easily won, statewide in Connecticut. Toomey would have been hard-pressed in PA even in 2002 and Laffey doomed under any scenario.  A more fitting comparison would be if the Democrats ran Lamont against Ben Nelson in a primary, and I know you know how ludicrous that sounds. For another, Lamont-Lieberman was a single issue race that was not really about Lieberman being "too moderate" (whether he is or not is a topic for another thread), but about Democratic anger over Iraq. Neither Toomey nor Laffey was a single-issue candidate; both ran on a wide array of conservative positions and in opposition to almost all of Specter's and Chafee's positions rather than only some of them.

Now, if the Republicans manage to change that issue, manage to wrest control of their primaries from the ultraconservatives, primaries that routinely threaten to topple their moderates, they might come to dominate the Senate and politics at a state level. For now, though, the only reason Democrats don't win landslide Presidential victories is because the Democrats are, by the necessity of not being able to run local campaigns, as polarizing as Republicans in Presidential races.

When two bad candidates run for office, Minnesotans become more divided. 

Bush/Kerry is a good example.  The election was not "Bush vs. Kerry" it was "stay the course vs. change the course."  At the time, stay the course seemed like a better idea.  And Bush still lost.  Minnesota has voted Republican in the past, much like the Northeast in recent times, when the Democrats get full of themselves and its time to weed out the rotten ones. 

1978 comes to mind, and 1998 as well.  In 1998 everyone just went buck nutty and we elected a pro-wrestler for governor, probably the most libertarian governor the country has seen.  And we really loved him and then we hated him.  Libertarianism is all nice and fuzzy and warm from a distance, but when it means that class sizes increase from 20 to 30 in 3  years and schools have to talk about going to a 4 day school week to make ends meet, you have alienated the public and you might as well not even seek a second term.

In 2008 I can bet you that Norm Coleman will lose his seat.  His insistence upon keeping on in Iraq and his flip-floppy manner on everything else will flounder against a strong decisive opponent that appeals to the states tradition of establishment, big-business skepticism.

You'll hear people whine and complain about government waste and too much government control... but they are absolutely adamant in their positions about big business:  Screw with the little guy and we'll use our democratic rights to elect someone that will step on your neck.  That's the peoples' will, damn it.

Bump.

So much for the structural Republican advantage in the Senate. :)

Oh, and by this analysis there are now 48 natural Democratic seats and 40 natural Republican seats.

So how does someone hold onto an 'un-natural' Senate seat?

1. Be around for a time -- a very long time. Incumbency aids any competent politician who can use his power as a legislator to bring home the pork-barrel spending and get government activity relocated into one's state. Look at Robert Byrd.

2. Be effective. That goes without saying.

3. Buck the Party as necessary. Don't put partisan loyalty above the sentiments and economic interests of one's state. GOP moderates like Chaffee in Rhode Island, Snowe and Collins in Maine, and Smith in Oregon are throwbacks to the time when the GOP dominated their region -- and are still around or were around for a long time. Democratic Senators in Arkansas, the Dakotas, and Nebraska are much more conservative than their Parties.


How to be a one-term Senator:

1. Be a partisan hack in a state that isn't particularly liberal or conservative. Pennsylvania is a prime example: ultra-liberals and ultra-conservatives alike fail there in statewide elections. A GOP hack can get away with it in Oklahoma and a Democratic hack can get away with it in Massachusetts... just don't try it in Ohio.

2. Fall short of the usual expectations.