January 06, 2010
To Hawthorn Friends and Family –
Whether driven by the ceaseless 24-hour news cycle, the ravenous demand of the internet for content, or just the insatiable needs of political junkies for "fixes," all events in Washington tend to be over-hyped, totally without perspective (certainly in the first day of an event).
Such was happening this morning after stories broke yesterday on the retirements of TWO Democratic US Senators – Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Chris Dodd of Connecticut – along with the announced retirement of Colorado's embattled Democratic Governor Bill Ritter. These, of course, came on the heels of pre-Christmas announcements of the retirement of four Democratic House members (including Science and Tech. Chair Bart Gordon of Tennessee) and the switch of Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith from D to R (his only hope of winning re-election, but without assurance he'll survive a GOP primary).
Headlines, pundits and blogs were quick to announce the fading fortunes of the Democratic Party, seeing in this proof positive that Democrats will lose control of the Senate and House. Even permanent-foot-in-mouth GOP Chair Michael Steele "corrected" his day earlier assessment that the GOP cannot win back the House in '10, now saying they have a very good chance.
The Senate --
Wait a minute! Yes, two Democrat senators HAVE, this week, announced their retirements. Dorgan's was unexpected. Dodd's had been rumored for weeks, given his disastrous poll numbers in Connecticut (no small result of moving his family to Iowa in 2008 in his ill-fated bid for president, not to mention scandals around his home mortgage, years of defending big insurance companies, just championing an unpopular healthcare bill, etc.). We have been saying all along that Dodd was THE most vulnerable Democrat in the senate, with a realistic choice of only retirement or defeat.
However, while Dorgan's seat is likely to go to the state's popular GOP Governor, it is very likely (given weak candidates battling in a GOP primary and, now, without Dodd's "baggage" having to be carried in the general) Dodd's seat will go to the perennially popular Democratic Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal. After all, the state went for Obama (61% - 38%) So, yesterday's announcements probably mean a one-seat loss for Democrats in the US Senate.
And, yes, earlier, three other Democrats announced retirement from the Senate, but ALL three are appointees: Kirk in Massachusetts, Kaufman in Delaware, and Burris in Illinois. Massachusetts will absolutely stay in the "D" column. Charlie Cook right now is calling Delaware and Illinois "toss-ups," but I'd be surprised if the Democrats don't keep both Obama's and Biden's seats. Even IF they lose one of the two, these three retirements would likely mean a second one-seat loss for Democrats.
Much overlooked in today's news (NY TIMES headline, "Retirements in Senate Signal Tough Year for Democrats"), six Republican senators earlier announced their retirements. In Kansas, where Brownback will win governor, the GOP will hold the senate seat. In Florida, the senate seat seems likely to stay Republican. The other four – Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio – are all toss-ups (which if the incumbents, other than Bunning in Kentucky, hadn't retired, the GOP would have kept). If the Democrats can win two of those four toss-ups, it will be a net two-seat gain for the D's, off-setting the two-seat loss, above.
Among the senators seeking re-election, three Democrats are currently rated "toss-ups" – Bennet in Colorado, Specter in Pennsylvania (who also faces a primary among his new-found fellow-Democrats), and Reid in Nevada – yet the Republicans cannot find a "worthy" opponent to take on Reid (and his expected $25 million war chest). Just today, Nevada's best pundit Jon Ralston predicted Harry Reid would win yet another close race . . . although with Dodd's retirement the majority leader probably remains locked with Specter for the "honor" of most vulnerable Democrat. Democrats Lincoln in Arkansas and Boxer in California are in races that "lean Democrat" (maybe more than lean in California). Republican Vitter enjoys similar status with "lean Republican" in Louisiana. So, among the tough races, what are Democrats going to suffer? Hard to see more than a two or three-seat further Democratic loss.
In sum, that's a total loss of two or three seats for Democrats. Best guess today: Democrats will NOT keep their 60-vote "filibuster-proof" majority (which tenuously depended on Independent Joe Lieberman and a number of conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats), but they will NOT lose control of the Senate, nor even come close.
The House --
Again, yes, four Democrats last month DID announce their retirement, and Parker Griffith switched parties. However, that brings to 10 the Democrats who are retiring, while 14 Republicans have announced their retirement, two within the last week (Radanovich of California and Brown of South Carolina). Interestingly, 11 of the 14 GOP'ers are leaving the House to seek higher office; six of the 10 Democrats are doing the same . . . hardly an indication members of either group fear voter wrath at the polls.
The big problems for Democrats are: (1) 38 freshmen Democrats are in "toss-up" or only "lean Democrat" seats and it's the first re-election where incumbents are most vulnerable; and (2) 46 Democrats represent districts McCain carried, while only 31 Republicans represent districts Obama carried.
But – as we've been saying – DO continue to watch the retirements.
In 1994, when the GOP, with Newt's "Contract With America," took the House, there were 28 Democratic retirements vs. 18 Republican retirements. In 2006, when the Democrats won the House back, there were 18 Republican retirements to just 9 Democratic retirements.
It bears repeating: watch the retirements. If the pace picks for Democrats and more of them than Republicans abandon the ship, it could mean a Democratic disaster-in-the-making.
And public opinion toward congress is lower than it was in '94 or '06.
Best guess today: Democrats WILL lose a significant number of seats in the House and could – but probably won't – lose control . . . a prediction subject to revision if Democratic retirements start to mount.
"Follow the money" --
Latest reports from campaign committees of cash-on-hand minus debts are:
Democratic National Committee $13,187,246
Republican National Committee 8,749,091
Democratic Senate Committee 11,853,821
Republican Senate Committee 7,335,015
Democratic House Committee 15,531,967
Republican House Committee 4,347,955
The Governors . . . and the Independent Voters --
It's a banner year for gubernatorial elections with 37 contests for offices currently held by 19 Democrats and 18 Republicans. Term-limits are a much larger factor than retirements. We'll look at the state houses in our next report.
We'll also look at the attitudes of independent voters. Independents decide elections, as we've often noted in these emails. And if one can figure out where they're trending – and adjust for turnout among them and party faithful – they also predict elections. And where they're trending recently is NOT good for Democrats. We'll be looking at them – based on a large body of recent polling – in our next report.
Happy New Year to all!!!
John
|
