Rothenberg: Democrats could get to 60 Senate seats by 2010

[Nym90]

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-democrats-time-to-pad-senate.html

Democrats probably don’t have to worry about losing their Senate majority in 2008, but that doesn’t mean next year’s elections aren’t crucial for them.

A strong ’08 could put the party in sight of a 60-seat majority in 2010, and that filibuster-proof majority would change the rules of the game on Capitol Hill.

Last year, Democrats won a stunning 24 of 33 races, which means over the next two Senate cycles they will need to win another 36 seats, out of the 67 that will be up, to give them the magic number of 60. Given the small Democratic classes next year (12) and in 2010 (15), and the fact that Republicans will be defending a total of 40 seats over the two cycles, it’s certainly possible that Democrats can net nine seats to get to 60.

Sixty-seat majorities are possible only when a party has a mega-year that produces a huge class. The Republicans did that in 2002 and put themselves in reach of 60 seats with a good 2004. But last year was a disaster, and now it is the Democrats who have a mathematical chance to hit the all-important 60-seat mark. But first, they must build on their numbers next year.

Five or six of the GOP’s 21 Senate seats up next year already look to be at some risk, and that number could grow if there are key retirements and if President Bush’s problems continue to drag down Republican Party numbers.

Colorado topped the list of vulnerable ’08 Senate seats even before Sen. Wayne Allard (R) announced that he would not seek re-election. Democratic Rep. Mark Udall already had signaled he would run for the Senate, and it is far from clear whether Republican chances of holding the Colorado seat have been hurt or improved by Allard’s decision.

Udall’s appeal, combined with Colorado’s recent Democratic drift and the GOP’s current national dilemma, certainly improves Democrats’ chances of picking up the Senate seat.

Another Democratic Representative, Maine’s Tom Allen, also is heading for a Senate race, and his challenge of incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins immediately makes the race a top-tier contest. Collins is always underestimated, and she begins her reelection bid well-liked, but the state’s Democratic bent, Allen’s assets and the Republican Party’s current standing mean that Collins will have a tough race.

At least three GOP Senators in competitive or Democratic-leaning states also could have tough races, depending on Democratic recruitment efforts.

Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman seems certain to draw a serious challenger, while Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith can’t take his re-election for granted. Both Republicans have started to criticize Bush’s Iraq policy, but they represent states that went for Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) in the 2004 presidential race and that could well go Democratic again in 2008.

New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu (R) also could have a very tough fight for a second term. He won narrowly in 2002, and his party took an absolute bath in the state in 2006, losing two House seats and getting swept out of both chambers of the state Legislature.

Other Republicans look to be in relatively good shape for re-election — if they seek it. And that could be the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s problem.

At least a few Republican Senators up next year will remain on everyone’s retirement watch list, and while all of them eventually may seek (and win) re-election, for now NRSC Chairman John Ensign (Nev.) has to be worrying at least a bit about their decisions.

The names on this list include Sens. John Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Thad Cochran (Miss.) and Elizabeth Dole (N.C.).

Savvy Republican observers agree that this cycle is a “very challenging” one for the GOP, given the numbers of Republican and Democratic seats up and the current national political environment, which would slow GOP candidate recruitment and hurt committee fundraising.

But they also know that election cycles have a way of changing dramatically over two years, and it’s possible that the picture could be brighter for the GOP 18 months from now when it comes to the 2008 elections.

Right now, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu is the most vulnerable Democratic Senator up next year, but other Democratic Senate seats could become competitive depending on retirements and Republican recruiting.

Still, given the recent electoral performance of states with Democratic-held seats up in 2008 — including Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Michigan and Rhode Island — it is hard to see Republicans seriously contesting more than a few of those seats. So the most likely Republican scenario for winning back the Senate is to retain all of the GOP seats, knock off Landrieu and win the White House again, giving them a tie in the Senate and control with the vice president breaking the tie.

Talking about a Democratic super-majority in the Senate in 2010 may seem odd and premature, and it is. The 2008 presidential results and unknowable events over the next few years could change the political equation completely, denying Democrats an opportunity to keep their majority, let alone grow it to 60. But given the makeup of the three Senate classes, party strategists would be foolish not to be thinking about the arithmetic even now.

[Adlai Stevenson]

It is certainly a possibility, albeit a rather slim one.  But imagine if Democrats have somewhere near a 54-55-56 majority in the Senate in January 2009 then in 2010 there are already two possibly vulnerable, possibly retiring Republicans in Ohio and Kentucky with two good Democratic candidates.  Mel Martinez also looks vulnerable at this point.  The Democrats have less vulnerable seats because the Republicans basically anihilated them in the South in the 2002 and 2004 races and other Democratic incumbents are running in neutral or Democratic states in years unpopular for Republicans. 

[WalterMitty]

oh brother.

only a misguided leftist would think susan collins is in trouble.

[Kevin]

Remember everybody was talking about a Republican supermajority after the 2004 election. It turns out that they were wrong. Anything could happen between now and 2010, Although it is very fun to predict.   

[Mr.Phips]

Remember everybody was talking about a Republican supermajority after the 2004 election. It turns out that they were wrong. Anything could happen between now and 2010, Although it is very fun to predict.   

I think it was always assumed that Republicans would not be able to sustain the 55-45 Senate majority after the 2006 election.  It just seemed very unlikely that their majority would be lost.

[Gabu]

This article kind of reminds me of this prediction that I did for Halloween, at least in terms of how it seems to simply assume that absolutely everything will go the Democrats' way from now until 2010.  Four years is an awful long time in politics.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Just something I noticed is that Ensign is considering the possibility Hagel will retire.  Does anyone really think that seat is in jeopardy if Hagel retires?  Hell if he retires it might increase the margin of victory.  It's kind of like Kerry's seat in Massachusetts, almost exactly

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

oh brother.

only a misguided leftist would think susan collins is in trouble.

Only a misguided rightist would've though Mark Kennedy was more likely to win than Bob Casey.

[Smash255]

oh brother.

only a misguided leftist would think susan collins is in trouble.

I don't think Collins will lose her seat, but this won't be a large victory for her.  Allen is about as popular as she is.

[InsideTheBeltway]

Just something I noticed is that Ensign is considering the possibility Hagel will retire.  Does anyone really think that seat is in jeopardy if Hagel retires?  Hell if he retires it might increase the margin of victory.  It's kind of like Kerry's seat in Massachusetts, almost exactly

It sounds like former Govenor Johanns, who is now Agriculture Secretary, would seriously consider running if Hagel retries.  He would be able to hold the seat easily. 

[minionofmidas]

60? Can't see it yet. Very much a best case scenario, I guess.

[tarheel-leftist85]

2008
Dems: +6 (CO, NH, MN, NC, OR, VA--pending Warner's retirement)
Reps:  +1 (LA)

Clean sweep in the Deep South.  Democrats will make gains in de-Southernized Peripheral South with liberal candidates not affiliated with Clinton--like Jim Webb who didn't run as a Southern Democrat.  In Virginia you got Leslie Byrne, but I'm still deciding on a liberal candidate for North Carolina (maybe Harvey Gantt, especially without Jesse Helms in the picture?   Brad Miller?  Mel Watt?  Not Easley since he's a corporate whore, or Bev Purdue since she likes to put people to death.)

2010
[64 D / 36 R--but w/ the turncoats on our side, it's more like 62 D / 38 R, still filibuster-proof]
Dems.:  +7 (NH, PA, KY, KS--Sebelius v. Brownback, NC, FL, MO)
Reps.:  +0

And here's the final map [Red-2D, Blue-2R, Gray-1D/1R]

[Reaganfan]

Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine won't really be contested, IMO. Colorado, Louisiana and South Dakota will be close, though.

I see the Republicans making two net gains, and the democrats making one net gain for a 50-50 Senate...with a Republican Vice President breaking the tie. Then again...it could be a Democrat Vice President...who knows.

[Gabu]

Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine won't really be contested, IMO.

There are already two Democratic candidates in Minnesota and Coleman has a net negative approval rating, but you don't think it will be contested?

[Adlai Stevenson]

The idea of South Dakota being seriously contested...Republicans need to let go of that one.  Johnson is running for re-election, is popular and has sympathy for what he has suffered.  He would beat Governor Rounds - even if Rounds ran which seems unlikely.  The Republican bench is pretty shallow in South Dakota.

[Mr.Phips]

The idea of South Dakota being seriously contested...Republicans need to let go of that one.  Johnson is running for re-election, is popular and has sympathy for what he has suffered.  He would beat Governor Rounds - even if Rounds ran which seems unlikely.  The Republican bench is pretty shallow in South Dakota.

A recent poll showed him beating Rounds 53%-39%.

[Mr.Phips]

Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine won't really be contested, IMO. Colorado, Louisiana and South Dakota will be close, though.

I see the Republicans making two net gains, and the democrats making one net gain for a 50-50 Senate...with a Republican Vice President breaking the tie. Then again...it could be a Democrat Vice President...who knows.

You must be kidding about New Hampshire.  That is going to be a barnburner.

[InsideTheBeltway]

The idea of South Dakota being seriously contested...Republicans need to let go of that one.  Johnson is running for re-election, is popular and has sympathy for what he has suffered.  He would beat Governor Rounds - even if Rounds ran which seems unlikely.  The Republican bench is pretty shallow in South Dakota.

Agreed-it is often said about small states in general and the Dakotas in particular that politicians from opposing parties are more reluctant to run against each other because they often work together more than those in bigger states.  I think Rounds was at best 50-50 to challenge Johnson before his incident, I think it's even less likely now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The idea of South Dakota being seriously contested...Republicans need to let go of that one.  Johnson is running for re-election, is popular and has sympathy for what he has suffered.  He would beat Governor Rounds - even if Rounds ran which seems unlikely.  The Republican bench is pretty shallow in South Dakota.

A recent poll showed him beating Rounds 53%-39%.

What pollster?

[Mr.Phips]

The idea of South Dakota being seriously contested...Republicans need to let go of that one.  Johnson is running for re-election, is popular and has sympathy for what he has suffered.  He would beat Governor Rounds - even if Rounds ran which seems unlikely.  The Republican bench is pretty shallow in South Dakota.

A recent poll showed him beating Rounds 53%-39%.

What pollster?

Feldman Group

[Alcon]

The idea of South Dakota being seriously contested...Republicans need to let go of that one.  Johnson is running for re-election, is popular and has sympathy for what he has suffered.  He would beat Governor Rounds - even if Rounds ran which seems unlikely.  The Republican bench is pretty shallow in South Dakota.

A recent poll showed him beating Rounds 53%-39%.

What pollster?

Feldman Group

Partisan Dem pollster

[Smash255]

Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine won't really be contested, IMO. Colorado, Louisiana and South Dakota will be close, though.

I see the Republicans making two net gains, and the democrats making one net gain for a 50-50 Senate...with a Republican Vice President breaking the tie. Then again...it could be a Democrat Vice President...who knows.

Why exactly don't you think New Hampshire will be contested??  (partisan hackishness aside)

[Virginian87]

2008
Dems: +6 (CO, NH, MN, NC, OR, VA--pending Warner's retirement)
Reps:  +1 (LA)
Clean sweep in the Deep South.  Democrats will make gains in de-Southernized Peripheral South with liberal candidates not affiliated with Clinton--like Jim Webb who didn't run as a Southern Democrat.  In Virginia you got Leslie Byrne, but I'm still deciding on a liberal candidate for North Carolina (maybe Harvey Gantt, especially without Jesse Helms in the picture?   Brad Miller?  Mel Watt?  Not Easley since he's a corporate whore, or Bev Purdue since she likes to put people to death.)

HA!  You're completely deluded and obviously know nothing about Virginia politics if you think Leslie Byrne will win statewide.  The woman couldn't even win her old congressional district in Fairfax!  She (or some black state delegate like Donald McEachin) would be the worst possible Democrat to put up in Virginia.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine won't really be contested, IMO. Colorado, Louisiana and South Dakota will be close, though.

The only correct thing you said is that Louisiana will be close...

GOP will pick up Lousiana now that New Orleans is destroyed.

South Dakota is a non issue.

Colorado is likely Dem

Maine, Minn, and NH all have a good shot to flip.  I love the GOPers who think that Collins = Snowe... =)

[TheresNoMoney]

HA!  You're completely deluded and obviously know nothing about Virginia politics if you think Leslie Byrne will win statewide. 

She came within 1.5% of winning statewide in 2005. Just sayin'..........