"Half a re-alignment" : Part 1 of 3 - The Senate

[The Vorlon]

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...

[The Vorlon]

Applying your analysis to the 1972 election, we have 98 "natural" Republicans.  The 1984 election gives us 97 "natural" Republicans.

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.

[The Vorlon]

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.

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.

[The Vorlon]

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.

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...

[The Vorlon]

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

[The Vorlon]

Excuse me.

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

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

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

[The Vorlon]

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

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

[The Vorlon]

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

[The Vorlon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

==>>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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hardly. Ask McGovern.

You must be logged in to read this quote.