Site Presented By
Saturday, Jul 11, 2009
The midterm elections are only two years away. Can the Democrats defend their gains?
Editor's note: Listen to a podcast of this round table here.
By Thomas Schaller
Read more: Republican Party, Democratic Party, U.S. Senate, Florida, Congress, Politics, News, 2008 election, Salon Conversations, Thomas F. Schaller
Salon/Mignon Khargie
Listen to Thomas Schaller in conversation with Chris Hayes, Chuck Todd and Amy Walter
Dec. 8, 2008 | With a Senate runoff just concluded in Georgia, a Senate recount in Minnesota still to be decided and a few lingering House races, the 2008 elections are not quite complete. Could there be a better time to begin speculation about the 2010 election cycle?
Joking aside, Democrats have put together two solid elections in a row, first capturing majorities in the House and Senate -- and then adding the White House and expanding their majorities last month in a historic election. But the last time the Democrats controlled all of Washington was following the 1992 victory of Bill Clinton. Just two years later, the Republicans swept into power, defining the politics of the next 12 years. Perhaps it really isn't too early to start looking at the prospects for the 2010 election, the results of which could have major implications not only for [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi and [Sen.] Harry Reid's congressional majorities but also for Barack Obama's presidency and political agenda.
Three luminaries of political analysis agreed to share their insights with Salon. Chris Hayes is the Washington editor of the Nation and a fellow at the New America Foundation. His articles have appeared in the American Prospect, the New Republic, and the Washington Monthly. Chuck Todd is the national political director for NBC News. One of the most recognized political experts on national television, Todd also serves as NBC News' on-air political analyst for "NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams," "Today," "Meet the Press" and MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews." Amy Walter, the editor in chief of the Hotline, the National Journal Group's online briefing on politics and policies, writes a weekly column called "On the Trail" for NationalJournal.com. Before joining the Hotline, she was an editor at the Cook Political Report, where she handicapped U.S. House races for almost 10 years. Salon spoke to Hayes, Todd and Walter by phone.
Tom Schaller: Although Bill Clinton in 1998 and George Bush in 2002 broke the historical pattern, usually the president's party loses seats in midterm cycles. Shouldn't 2010, the first midterm with a unified Democratic government since the 1994 Republican revolution, favor the Republicans?
Chris Hayes: I think that so much right now depends on the objective conditions of the country, particularly the economy. It's really difficult to predict ... because the economy is in such a period of sustained distress and uncertainty. I think there's a distinction between the Senate and the House. The Senate schedule is looking quite favorable to Democrats. That kind of insulates them a little bit, whereas in the House, the Republican caucus is pared down about as low as it could possibly go short of redistricting. I don't really see a whole lot of room left for the Republicans to go anywhere but up. So, I would expect to see some modest gains for Republicans in the House in 2010.
Chuck Todd: You know, you would assume Republicans should pick up House seats. I say you would assume.
The Republicans are going to deal with a big problem of retirements, more so on the Senate side. The Senate map looks terrible for the Republicans. When you think of the Democrats who are up for reelection, the only ones that are really going to be in trouble are Harry Reid plus whoever gets appointed to these vacant seats in Delaware, New York and Illinois simply because of the crazy politics. There could be primaries. That's the only thing that's upsetting the apple cart for the Democrats in the Senate in 2010. The Democrats up for reelection are the guys that won in '04. So Democrats that survived '04 -- I'd be shocked if Republicans found a decent candidate to run against Ken Salazar in Colorado.
The other thing that you've got to remember is, I think, Republicans are going to have a money problem. I think this is not like '93-94, because you're going to have money on the side of the Democrats and a depressed Republican Party, and that's going to lead to more retirements. History says that Republicans should at least pick up some House seats, but if Democrats picked up seats in both houses, it wouldn't surprise me simply on mechanics.
Amy Walter: I think that it's clear that Democrats hold their majority in the Senate. OK, so that one's done.
Can they lose, like in '94, can they lose the 40-plus seats that would give Republicans control of the House? Right now, we know that there are at least 70 if not more Democrats who sit in red districts. If we're just going to play it on red versus blue, there are enough seats to be put into play. I agree with Chuck that there aren't that many Republican seats left -- there are only five Republicans in districts that John Kerry won in 2004.
Now, that said, retirements do make a big difference, even in the House. The real question in my mind is recruiting, and I think that's more important in the Senate than in the House. The key for Republicans is not just what the mood will be, but there are also a lot of governors' races, so that's going to be enticing for some of these Republicans who are looking to move up the ladder. And let's see where the mood of the country is. It's easy to say now that Republicans are depressed, Democrats have the momentum.
I don't think this is '93-94, where you're going to have a president who comes in and makes all kinds of mistakes and puts Democrats in difficult positions to make tough votes. At the same time, the odds that this is just going to be one big lovey honeymoon for the Democratic Party -- I think that that history suggests that is not likely.
Schaller: Let's pick up on some of the comments you made and move chamber to chamber. Let's start with the Senate. Who might be vulnerable for the Democrats, or what open seat might be in reach for the Republicans?
Walter: Chuck's right that Harry Reid right now is the only obvious target. If you've seen the most recent polls, even up against Jon Porter, he was up but still under 50 percent. He has high unfavorables. He is a target that every Republican will want to be spending time on. And then you look at the rest of these folks. I think it's true that Ken Salazar, in a bad year for Democrats, sure would make a nice target. The bench there is not very deep -- is it Tom Tancredo that they pick to go against him?
I'm not really sure where you go from there. Can Republicans finally find somebody in Arkansas, for God's sake? This is one of the few states that went for McCain by a bigger percentage than it went for Bush. But there's no bench there. You kind of look at the rest of these folks and they're in very blue states. [Barbara] Mikulski [of Maryland], [Charles] Schumer [of New York], [Patrick] Leahy [of Vermont], [Chris] Dodd [of Connecticut], [Barbara] Boxer [of California]. These are not easy places to go. And then Patty Murray [of Washington], Russ Feingold [of Wisconsin]. I just don't see it. This also assumes that they're all staying there, none of them are retiring. And it also assumes that the environment is going to be good enough that somebody who has a serious challenger can count on the strength of their incumbency to hold on.
Next page: "The question is, what do they do in New England? You know, I might walk away at this point"
Can Republicans come back from their "thumpin'"?
The end of a long journey for Obama
Don't count the Bushes out yet
Submit