|
CONTROL OF THE SENATE: IT'S SIMPLE MATH At times my students complain that political scientists are too consumed with quantitative methods. Generally they are wrong; we can prove or disprove our hypotheses mathematically much more convincingly than we can with qualitative methods (though, to be sure, qualitative methods are absolutely appropriate for some studies). Be that as it may, for some analysis rudimentary quantification is absolutely necessary. As an example, all that you need to understand what is about to happen in upcoming U.S. Senate elections is simple math-and you cannot really look at them without that math. The question with which I am concerned deals not with who will win individual Senate races, but with which party will control the Senate. In the current 107th Congress, the Democrats control the Senate (and therefore hold committee chairs and simple majorities on committees) by the slimmest of margins-one vote. The partisan balance is 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent (James Jeffords of Vermont, who switch from the Republican party early in 2001). This single-vote majority is thought to be particularly important because the Republicans control the White House and the House of Representatives. We now have divided government that is said to restrict Republican initiatives; if the House stays Republican (the subject of next week's commentary) and the Republicans gain control of the Senate, they will have unified control of both branches and an easier task in adopting their policies. So we start with simple numbers: 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, 1 Independent. But we know that not all 100 senators are up for re-election, because of six-year terms, staggered so that in normal circumstances the two senators from any one state are not up at the same time. In fact, 34 Senate seats are up for re-election next month. Of those 34 seats, 14 are currently held by Democrats; 20 by Republicans. Therefore, we know-as of today-that there will be at least 36 Democrats in the new Senate and at least 29 Republicans. To win a majority, the Democrats need only pick up 14 of the 34 seats up; the Republicans need to pick up 21. That is because Senator Jeffords will vote with the Democrats to organize the Senate, so they need 50 seats and the Republicans need 51. Where will the parties look for these seats. Well, ceteris paribus, one should look first to open seats. Open seats are often among the most competitive. In this election cycle, four senators, all Republicans, have announced their retirements-Senators Jesse Helms (N.C.), Phil Gramm (TX), Fred Thompson (TN), and Strom Thurmond (SC). One other Republican senator, Bob Smith (NH) lost a primary, so that seat is technically open as well. Were those senators all seeking re-election, certainly Gramm and Thompson would appear safe for re-election. Smith clearly was vulnerable for political reasons (as witnessed by his primary loss); Helms has faced tough races in his last two re-elections and has been ill; Thurmond is . . . well, very old (100 by the time this Congress adjourns) and might have faced a serious challenge in any case. The net result is that two seemingly safe Republican seats are now vulnerable to Democratic attack. Three other Republican seats are also open to grabbing by the Democrats with no Republican incumbent to defend them. In the area of open seats: advantage Democrats. Now let's turn to the incumbents on the November ballot-14 Democrats and 15 Republicans. Six of the Democrats (Biden [DE], Durbin [IL], Kerry [MA]. Levin [MI]-see below, Reed [RI], and Rockefeller [WV] and ten of the Republicans (Cochran [MS], Craig [ID], Domenici [NM], Enzi [WY], Hagel {NE], McConnell [KY], Roberts [KS], Sessions [AL], Stevens [AK], and Warner [VA]) seem totally safe. No analyst whose work I have read sees any of these races as close; the incumbents have large poll leads and large dollar leads over their challengers; no scandals are lurking. Barring truly unforeseen circumstances, they will win. (But remember, all things are not always equal; recall the tragic plane crash on the eve of the November 2000 Missouri election.) For these sixteen seats: advantage Republicans. Let's add these safe seats to our math. For all intents and purposes we can say quite confidently that the Democrats will have at least 42 senators when the 108th Congress convenes (the 36 whose terms are not expiring plus these six safe seats; the Republicans will have at least 39 (those 29 with unexpiring terms plus these 10). So, we are left to deal with 8 Democrats whose terms are expiring who are not safe, five Republicans in the same boat, and the five open seats. Of these 18, the Republicans need to win 11 to regain majority status; to keep the majority, the Democrats need only win 8. That's the end of the easy numbers. The task is slightly harder for the Republicans, but not impossible. From here on out we are in a best-guess scenario, with a situation that is quite fluid. For what it is worth, here are my best guesses, informed by and with thanks to analysts such as Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report, Stuart Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report, and Rhodes Cook of the Rhodes Cook Newsletter. Three Democratic senators (Cleland [GA], Landrieu [LA]-with the caveat that she might be forced to a run-off in Louisiana's unique electoral system described in Chapter 7, and Baucus [MT]) and two Republican senators (Smith [OR] and Inhofe [OK]) now appear headed for victory. Our list is now down to 13 and the Democrats needing 5 and the Republicans 9. From here, the prognosticating becomes more difficult. National events-related to a possible war with Iraq and continued economic difficulties or corporate scandals-could swing voters in a number of states in one direction or the other. But more likely these races will be determined by local factors and local campaigning. And some of these factors in recent weeks have indeed been bizarre-the withdrawal of the scandal-plagues Democratic senator from New Jersey, Bob Torricelli, and his replacement by former Senator Frank Lautenberg, taking a Democratic seat that looked headed for the Republicans and putting it back toward the Democrats column; the resignation, again because of scandals of campaign aids to Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin, making the seat that he seemed likely to defend more competitive; the emergence of two-party competition for all statewide offices in Texas, once thought headed into the Republican camp but now up for grabs. The open seats in New Hampshire (where an incumbent governor is running against an incumbent congressman who has represented half of the state) and Texas seem truly up for grabs. The Republicans seem more likely to hold the other three. The most vulnerable incumbents seem to be two Democrats (Wellstone [MN] and Carnahan [MO]) and two Republicans (Hutchinson [AR] and Allard [CO]). If we assume that the other incumbents will hold on and these six seats split (an assumption based on NO facts), the Democrats end with a net gain of 1 seat and the new Senate would be 51 Democrats, 48 Republicans, and 1 Independent. For the Republicans to gain control, they would have to move two of those seats or win some of the other seats that we have "conceded" to the Democrats. I see little chance of that happening, just as I see little chance of the Democrats winning as many as 52 or 53 seats. But note I say little chance, not no chance. To see how I do, watch these
races on election night: Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Hampshire, and Texas. If one party or the other wins most of these,
that party is in good shape. Then turn to Iowa, Maine, New Jersey,
North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee. If a
rout is on, you will see it here. Erratum: Last week I wrote
that three Senators up for re-election opposed giving President Bush
expanded war powers in Iraq. In fact, four did so. Senator Carl Levin
(D-MI) was the senator whose vote I failed to note. Like Senators
Durbin and Reed, and unlike Senator Wellstone, Levin is safe for re-election.
I apologize to Senator Levin for this error. |