September 4, 2001

3:16 PM

Reno's going to run...and Gramm is going to retire. Two Hispanic Congressmen, a Republican and a Democrat, seem poised to run for the Senate seat. (Does a Democrat even stand a chance in Texas...with little more than a year 'til the election?)

That makes 3 Republican Senate retirements (Thurmond, Helms, Gramm). 20 Republican Senate seats are up for reelection as opposed to 13 Democrat seats. How do you think the Democrats will fare in the 2002 elections -- both in and out of the Senate?
posted by jennak (13 comments total)

I'm pretty confident that the Democrats will take the Senate, and maybe even the House. The House deficit will be harder to overcome (currently 221 Repub to 212 Demo).
posted by msacheson at 3:38 PM on September 4, 2001

I would focus upon getting Mr Rogers to run for president. Imagine taking off his shoes, putting on sneakers. What parent would dare vote against him?
posted by Postroad at 3:52 PM on September 4, 2001

In mid-term elections, the party holding the White House tends to lose seats in both houses of Congress, an average of around 7 seats in the House, and 2 seats in the Senate. Of course, it's always possible that the President's party could overcome the odds and pick up seats, but 2/3 of the time it goes the other way. So a betting man would be safe to put money on a 219-216 Democratic majority and 52-48 for the Senate.

There's a secondary factor at work, though. In 1994 the Contract with America -- a brilliant, focussed coordinated campaign strategy on the part of the GOP -- managed to turn many seats long held by Democrats over to the Republicans. These are not, however, seats that the GOP can count on holding firmly, and they've lost seats every election since then. This increases the odds they'll lose more seats next year. The Contract hit many items chosen by poll and focus group (yes, the GOP uses them too) as likely to win them support at the ballot box from moderates. They've used them up, though, and haven't been as coordinated in the years since, so they'll have an uphill battle to make their case. The razor-thin plurality election of George W. Bush also failed to have coat-tails that would ensure them a united government. Additionally, these retirements weaken GOP chances in key states. Democrats do win statewide office in Texas (though it may not happen with a favorite son in the WH).
posted by dhartung at 4:45 PM on September 4, 2001

Also, I'd guess that the across-the-board nature of the tax prebate (in its current form thanks to Democrat toadying) makes it difficult for incumbents on either side to exploit opportunities for distinctive pork-barrel spending. I'd like to see how many Republicans manage to juggle "I supported trimming the federal budget" with "look at the local projects I lobbied for".
posted by holgate at 4:53 PM on September 4, 2001

Also, I'd guess that the across-the-board nature of the tax prebate (in its current form thanks to Democrat toadying) makes it difficult for incumbents on either side to exploit opportunities for distinctive pork-barrel spending. I'd definitely like to see how many Republicans manage to juggle "I supported trimming the federal budget" with "look at the local projects I lobbied for".
posted by holgate at 4:53 PM on September 4, 2001

die, browser, die.
posted by holgate at 4:54 PM on September 4, 2001

dan, I don’t think many people bought into the “Contract with America” PR blitz. From what I understand, the public was pretty ambivalent about the whole thing. Perhaps you could make an argument that Gingrich capitalized on disenfranchised Democrat voters. ’96 saw record low-turnout, as percent of VAP. This, I believe, is due to hard-core Dems thinking Clinton sold them out, and everybody else pretty much sure Bubba had the race locked. That the Contract was solely responsible for getting Republicans into Congress is pushing it.

Just a qualification, I guess.

Does a Democrat even stand a chance in Texas...with little more than a year 'til the election?

Democrats in Texas are basically Republicans. Just like Democrats in Washington.

About your larger question: I think Democrat voters are going to turnout in huge numbers come ought-two, mostly as a reply to the 2000 election fiasco. Republican and independents aren’t inspired by Bush very much. I remember some National Review-esque rag saying, “[Bush] isn’t the best, but he’s our guy.” That, coupled with his low approval ratings bode ill for him. I suspect he’ll get trounced whenever voters get a chance to do so.

But I voted Green, so what the hell do I know.
posted by raaka at 8:29 PM on September 4, 2001

For the Senate, Dems look pretty good in the CO, OR and NH races.

Dems can probably hold on in LA and GA, if only because incumbents there can claim they
voted for Bush's tax cut -- make it hard to attack them as obstructionists.

Tim Johnson in So dakota seems to be the weakest Dem, but South Dakota has a history of
electing liberals to the Senate while it votes Repub for President.

North Carolina is in striking distance for Dems - Helms won by only 4% or so last time, and if Jim Hunt
gets in the race Libby Dole will have some trouble. SC and TX are less likely to go Dem, but we can
at least force the GOP to waste some money there.
posted by brucec at 8:53 PM on September 4, 2001

The Democrats may have the historical "off-year" election (a phenomenon most likely caused by greater non-Presidential election interest and voter turnout among the sitting Administration's detractors then among its fans) trend on their side, but next year will be run post-reapportionment.

The GOP controls more state legislatures and governorships than it did in 1990, and red "Bush" states are picking up more seats in the House while several blue "Gore" states are losing seats (i.e., Rep. David Bonior of Michigan is running for governor because his formerly safe seat is being apportioned out of existence). California picks up one new seat, but with the Democratic legislature there shoring up Gary Condit's district with reliable liberals (because, at least until the Chung interview, he was the only Democrat who can win it as it stands), that state will probably be a wash. All in all, reapportionment weights the House to the GOP's favour next year, even accounting for the off-year trend. Of course, if the economy continues to stall, that could matter less. All else being equal, though, the GOP is not looking to lose their thin margin in the House.

On a side note, it is entirely possible the GOP will regain control of the Senate before next year's elections. Sen. Traficant is quite likely to resign once he's indicted, leaving a GOP governor to appoint his successor - who will run as an incumbent.
posted by MuadDib at 10:40 PM on September 4, 2001

In 1994 the Contract with America -- a brilliant, focussed coordinated campaign strategy on the part of the GOP -- managed to turn many seats long held by Democrats over to the Republicans.

I don't think you're giving Bill Clinton enough credit here. The politically disastrous start to his presidency led to 1994. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but I see the same thing happening with Bush in 2002. To overcome the mid-term jinx, a president needs to appeal to moderates, and Bush has shown no interest in doing that.

Democrats in Texas are basically Republicans. Just like Democrats in Washington.

The Democrats in Texas are nothing like Washington Democrats. You couldn't get elected as a Republican in Texas for decades because of anger over Reconstruction -- in 1979, Bill Clements became the first Republican governor in 100 years -- so there have been a lot of Texas Democrats who are completely indistinguishable from Republicans. This is why Bush's reputation for bipartisanship in Texas is such a joke -- it's real easy to work with Democrats when they're actually Republicans who haven't bothered to switch parties yet.
posted by rcade at 5:57 AM on September 5, 2001

Traficant is just a Representative, thank god - which means a special election if he resigns.
posted by brucec at 10:16 AM on September 5, 2001

red "Bush" states are
picking up more seats in the House while several blue "Gore" states are losing seats (i.e., Rep. David Bonior of
Michigan is running for governor because his formerly safe seat is being apportioned out of existence).

This is not a good predictor of the House. For example, although some Gore states are losing seats, in some cases, like NY for instance, they are forcing the Republicans to eat a seat while they eat one, nulifying the loss. In the case of Georgia, which is gaining seats, there is the possibility of a Dem pick up. The conventional wisdom is that reapportionment is a wash.
posted by brucec at 10:19 AM on September 5, 2001

Traficant is just a Representative, thank god - which means a special election if he resigns.

Right you are. I meant Robert Torricelli. I apologize for the error. Sometimes it's hard to keep all these Democrats facing indictment straight.

The conventional wisdom is that reapportionment is a wash.

It could well, be - especially, as I said, if the economy doesn't improve. But I'm seeing early suggestions of a pick-up nationwide of a handful of seats for the GOP just from reapportionment. One cannot predict any of this accurately with so much uncertainty about the large influences still present, I just wanted to get the reapportionment into the debate because it seemed to be being ignored.
posted by MuadDib at 3:03 PM on September 5, 2001