Charlie Cook is a decent analyst but he seems to have modestly Republican preferences that sometimes shade his analysis.
Come November, Senate Democrats’ 60-vote supermajority is toast. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how Democrats could lose the Senate this year. But they have a 50-50 chance of ending up with fewer than 55 seats in the next Congress.
He’s giving even money that the Republicans will net five Senate seats in the 2010 midterm elections. But how does he get there? He doesn’t say, so we have to imagine.
Update [2010-1-8 11:44:3 by BooMan]: Posting without coffee. I now realize that the math is wrong in this piece because Cook is actually giving even money that the GOP will net six seats, not five. So, adjust what I wrote accordingly.
The first assumption he must be making is that the Democrats will not be winning any of the open seats left by retiring Republicans (Florida, Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, and New Hampshire). He also assumes that David Vitter will overcome his diaper problems and defeat a strong challenge from Blue Dog Charlie Melanchon. He assumes that Richard Burr will be the first North Carolinian to win reelection to the CLASS III seat since Sam Ervin did it in 1968. In other words, there will be no pickups for the Democrats, only losses. But where will those five losses come from? Certainly not Connecticut, where Dick Blumenthal has a formidable lead in the polls.
Well, we can start in North Dakota where present governor John Hoeven will probably take over Byron Dorgan’s seat. That’s one pickup. Perhaps Blanche Lincoln will lose down in Arkansas, as she is showing some serious vulnerability in early polls. That’s two. Harry Reid has looked weak, too, in polling data, although he has many advantages (from money, to clout, to unions) that make his reelection likely. We’re starting to go out on a limb here giving even money, but we’ll call Harry Reid ‘number three.’
So, where is Charlie Cook going to come up with two more seats the Democrats are going to lose? Maybe he is looking at Delaware where Rep. Michael Castle is running for the vice-president’s old seat. It is anticipated that his opponent will be Biden’s son, Beau, fresh back from his tour in Iraq. Early polling has shown a toss-up in this race, but we’ll make it the fourth seat.
So, to get to the precipice of five seats, we’ve posited that the Dems will lose every open contest, plus lose the Majority Leader, the vice-president’s old seat, and the seat down in Clinton Country. And Cook wants to give us even money on that happening, plus (wait! there’s more!) he’s willing to toss in another seat. I don’t know where you go to get another toss-up, but you could go to Barack Obama’s old seat in Illinois. Or, you could look at Michael Bennet in Colorado (but he doesn’t really have much of an opponent right now). Maybe Specter/Sestak will lose to Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania or Barbara Boxer will get ousted in California. Maybe. But you want to give even money on those things happening?
It’s actually not at all unlikely that the Democrats will win some of the open Senate races. Robin Carnahan is a strong candidate in Missouri, to give just one example. And the Republican infighting in Florida is a sight to see. Who knows, if that contest becomes about voting for the candidate they electorate hates the least, the Democrats could pull off a shocker. I don’t think Vitter is a lock, or Burr. I don’t see any Democratic senators losing except perhaps Lincoln in Arkansas. To me, the midterms are still a wash, with the most likely scenario being a pick up of no more than two seats by either party. That would be a saner 50-50 bet.
I disagree but as you said, he’s only a bit off base.
Meek is a blank non-entity. He will be crushed by Crist or solidly beaten by Rubio. There is no way Kansas is going to elect a Democrat that is not Sebelius, same with Kentucky. Ohio and Missouri are similar in that nothing Obama has done has improved his numbers or that of the party. Maybe if there’s a jobs bill Ohio can be saved but Missouri has been trending red for some time. In the current atmosphere, close challengers from the Dems lose.
New Hampshire is a bit more interesting but polls shown Hodes to be significantly behind. Toss up I’d say.
ND as you say is gone, probably forever. There is no way in hell Lincoln wins in AK as you say, she is at around 40% in every poll taken. That’s kiss of death for incumbents absent a huge random event. Reid is in the same boat in Nevada, you think his machine is going to pull him out but he’s stuck in the 40s too. Any kind of GOP enthusiasm and he’s dead. Good riddance too, I regret the loss of the seat but not the ass in it.
DL is a true Toss Up, and if there is ever a good challenger in CO Bennett is dead too. That one has to be a Toss up.
Pat Toomey in polls is running roughly even with Specter AND Sestak. That might be a function of Sestak’s lower name recognition but having it be that close is terrifying and PA has that White Working Class that Democrats have to overcome with high turnout just like in OH and MO. NC is trending out way slowly but not quick enough. Without a dynamite candidate against a generic Republican, in the atmosphere NC is a likely loss.
So…. losses in MO, OH, KT, KS, AK, ND, NV seem likely to
me.
Tossups in NC, PA, CO.
I think 55 is what is going to shakeout unless something good happens for a change.
Add NH to the Toss Up Pile.
Dammit! And DL.
So 6 Losses, 5 tossups.
We have to work on your postal abbreviations:
AR- Arkansas
DE- Delaware
AK- Alaska
Indeed they suck. If only posts could be edited like at Balloon juice.
you are taking a glass half-empty look at these races.
The Democrats are at the bottom of a curve right now, so polling looks bad. But these elections are not taking place now. The candidates have to win primaries, campaign, debate, etc.
The Republicans have a significant financial disadvantage. They have a brutal internecine fight going on in Florida and the makings of one in Kentucky. Their likely candidate in Ohio, Rob Portman, is every bit as uniquely unsuited to win in these times as Jon Corzine was in New Jersey. Their likely candidate in New Hampshire is a neophyte and a lightweight. Their candidates in Nevada are also lightweights. Beau Biden has star-power, as we witnessed at the convention in Denver. Robin Carnahan is the strongest candidate we could field. Richard Burr is nearly as weak as Blanche Lincoln. David Vitter has serious vulnerabilities.
And, if the winds start blowing the other direction, we could see things open up against Jim DeMint in South Carolina. If Hutchison really retires, the Texas seat could get interesting. So, you can have cause for optimism if you choose to look at things in a more balanced way.
Excellent analysis, BooMan. I basically agree with you. And in particular I think Ms. Carnahan will be a very strong candidate. My gut tells me, though, the Democrats will lose one or two Senate seats.
posting before coffee.
I just realized my math is off. Cook is actually giving even money that the GOP with net six seats. That means IL and CO or some titanic upset like PA or CA. And he’s giving even money.
i can see an upset in PA.
Specter’s neck and neck with Toomey right now, but he’s unpopular with the democratic base (the establishment dems love him though, part of the incumbent protection racket). democrats are not energized to vote in 2010, but the GOP sure is, and Toomey appeals to the teabag brigade. I can see Specter losing.
i can also see Sestak, who’s name recognition is less than Toomey’s, also losing if GOP turnout is big. OTOH, I think if Sestak wins the primary that would be balanced by larger democratic turnout.
yes, specter has the money and name recognition, but he’s also got a record that he can’t run on, which is why his attacks on Sestak are so sputtering and hamhanded.
Toomey is total dud. But a corpse could beat Specter, so you never know. Definitely would be more comfortable with Sestak, although I just can’t warm up to the dude.
i’m not impressed with either, although Sestak’s definitely in it to win it. Specter’s not even trying.
If we lose even one seat, we’re toast, period, thanks to the 60 vote threshold to overcome filibusters.
And we’re pretty much guaranteed to lose at least one seat.
Bloggers should be focused on helping each and every Democratic Senator win. Anything else means no agenda for the next two to six years.
We have to get our GOTV mojo back. I know plenty of Dems who read Americablog and Firedoglake and they have become so disgusted with DC Dems that they have little interest in voting.
We will all lose if we don’t show up in 2010. Think things are bad now? This will seem like the good old days if we lose seats in the Senate.
We need to hold MA, Illinois, Delaware, PA, CA (which I don’t think will be too hard), NV, CO. We need to pick up OH and MO. I don’t think we have a chance in Florida with that stiff Meek, but if Crist switches parties then we’re golden. Lincoln in AK is toast, though let’s see how poll numbers change after health care passes and the economy starts creating jobs (big IF).
2010 is not a lost cause. Dems in DC just need to get stuff done and create jobs over the obstruction of the GOP. Period.
I haven’t been following the Dem side in FL. Is Meek a done deal for some reason?
Again, Arkansas=AR Alaska=AK
Sorry, but Blanche Lincoln doesn’t represent Alaska. I know you know that.
Charlie has been pushing that meme for months. It fits into the meme that ‘Democrats are dropping like flies’ or ‘Democrats are jumping ship’, in spite of the fact that there are more Republicans quitting/retiring than there are Democrats.
It is Charlie’s, the Republicans and the MSM’s way of demoralizing the left, making the left think that they might as well not put out the effort since they are going to lose anyway.
We need to push back on these kinds of memes! The GOP are masters at ‘keep repeating it and people will eventually believe it’ propaganda. Just look at how many GOPers are saying that there were no terrorist attacks on Bush’s watch. They are trying to make people believe that 9/11 didn’t happen or that it only happened because 9 months prior there was a Democrat as president. We can’t let them get away with this revisionist history! Everyone from center to far left needs to realize how dangerous this revising of history is and punch back against it before it gets even more of a foothold.
Keep up the good work, BooMan!
I would also look for party/caucus defections, like from Lieberman and Nelson.
I’ve been following the anti-filibuster discussion for a while (and I totally agree it should be abolished). But I’m starting to think that the Senators who should be the biggest fans of eliminating the filibuster are these vulnerable Dems.
Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln would probably have much better poll numbers if they could have just voted no on the stimulus, health care, etc. and still seen those bills pass.
Instead, the supermajority requirement of the filibuster means they must vote yes or kill their party’s top agenda. It puts them in a horrible position politically (although, granted, they made it worse by grandstanding and drawing attention rather than just keeping quiet).
But you’d think these folks would love to do away with the filibuster and give themselves more freedom to vote how they wish.
You noticed that too? lol I always thought he was a bit biased towards republicans in his polling too.
Nate Silver says there is a chance dems actually get to 61 in the Senate. Check out this link….Nate is the man when it comes to looking at the big picture.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/2010-senate-races-present-rewards-but.html
I wish he was really giving even odds — I’d mortgage everything and take the bet in a heartbeat. I kind of wish all the “analysts” would just shut up until election day is close. Cook and his myriad media counterparts don’t know a damn thing about what’s going to happen in November. Which doesn’t stop them from serial yapping their cultish formulas until they take on the guise of conventional wisdom.
The problem, aside from their bullshit dominating media time better used for real news, is that through sheer repetition they set up a self-fulfilling prophesy. Even though their predictions are based on factors indistinguishable from superstition, they rev up one side and discourage another in the same manner that Intel and other merchants get everybody talking about the “cloud”. They take a dynamic process and do everything they can to sell it as some kind of newtonian inevitability. Which is the only way they have something to bloviate about so profitably, of course.
The reality is that everything will depend on what the Dems do between now and election day — policy, campaigning, candidate selection, gotv, etc., and the vagaries of chance — the economy, jobs, crime, terrorist activity, weather, world events. It seems obvious to me that the Dems have a credible chance to hold their ground or even grow it a little in November. Whether they manage to play a winning game is a whole nother, and daunting, question. Crap like Cook is spewing seems designed to make that game as uphill as possible.
.
Want to know how far Joe Lieberman has fallen in the wake of the health care vote last month? Barack Obama’s approval rating with Connecticut Republicans is higher than Lieberman’s with the state’s Democrats.
81% of Democrats now disapprove of Lieberman’s job performance with only 14% approving, and he’s not real popular with Republicans who disapprove of him by a 48/39 margin or with independents who do so by a 61/32 spread either. It all adds up to a 25% approval rating with 67% of his constituents giving him bad marks.
Full results here
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
You give Mr. Cook way too much credit. While not a partisan per se, he does need to generate interest and traffic and will accordingly push whatever meme can do so at a given time.
There’s a lockstep push in the media to repeat ad nauseum the “Dems are heading for big trouble” meme. Cook is just getting on the bandwagon to better peddle his own bullshit.
Cook got caught out by ’94 and is overcompensating. He’s also a white, Southern male of a certain age and knows his cohort is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore (limpid fist shake). The reality is the votes that cohort will deliver has entered terminal decline.
Does the GOP keep trying to placate them with diminishing results or take its lumps for a couple of cycles and get positioned for the American voter base of 2016?