GOP Most Likely To Regain Control Of House, Senate By 2012

Democratic Majorities Safe, For Now



The recent retirements of two veteran Democratic senators and the decision by two Democratic gubernatorial candidates to drop their bids could prompt more in the party to head for the exits and further frighten already skittish donors and activists. But it doesn’t yet appear that the party’s congressional majorities are threatened.

Republicans are poised to make major gains in the House and the Senate, but the number of seats necessary to reclaim the majority makes it unlikely that they could knock the Democrats out of power in either chamber.

To win the control of the House, Republicans must win 40 seats in November. And to reclaim the Senate, they must pick up 11 seats. The math is harder than it looks.

“All things being equal, the turnout dynamics in a midterm cycle would probably cost House Democrats 10 to 15 seats. Throw in a rough national environment and our current outlook projects a GOP gain of 20 to 30 seats. Any further Democratic retirements or erosion in incumbents' standing could push that forecast higher,” said David Wasserman, an analyst for the Cook Political Report.

Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia Political Scientist, is now predicting a GOP gain of 27 seats in the House and three to four in the Senate.

“Those are marginal but significant advances for the GOP since the summer. What has gone up can continue to climb if President Obama becomes more unpopular — or the projected gains can be scaled back if the economy strengthens faster than expected,” said Sabato.

While the House is more difficult to assess because the fields aren’t fully formed, the electoral math seems difficult for the Republicans to pick up 11 Senate seats. While they may pick up North Dakota now that Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan is retiring and are running competitively in Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas, the GOP finds itself defending seats in Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Louisiana.

Democrats took comfort in analyzing the case-by-case fallout from the Tuesday and Wednesday announcements, which saw incumbent senators Dorgan and Chris Dodd of Connecticut disclose their decisions to retire rather than face potentially difficult re-elections, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter declining a re-election bid and Michigan Lt. Gov John Cherry quitting his gubernatorial race before it even started.

“When you look at these races individually our overall net position may have improved, particularly given that this is a bad year to be an incumbent,” said Democratic strategist Anita Dunn, the former Obama White House communications director. “On the micro level, none of these with the possible exception of North Dakota are all that damaging.”

With the embattled Dodd off the ballot, Democrats will now field longtime state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut and can recruit gubernatorial candidates in Michigan and Colorado who are not tainted by the unpopular status quo.

It will be tough for Democrats to hold the Dorgan seat, particularly if, as expected, popular North Dakota Republican Gov. John Hoeven gets in the race. Rep. Earl Pomeroy, the state’s at-large House member, could have been a strong contender, but he indicated Wednesday that he wouldn't run.

“All told, it was a lot to absorb for one day, but when push comes to shove, it may prove to be no runs, no hits, no errors,” said Democratic strategist Steve Rosenthal.

While Republicans may not be immediately positioned to pick up the needed seats to win control of the House and Senate, Tuesday’s retirements represent a blow to Democratic expectations and will likely spell the end of the party's filibuster-proof Senate majority.

“On the macro level there clearly is a psychological impact,” acknowledged Dunn.

Republicans said the symbolism of the day's events would fuel an already energized party.

"The retirements make recruiting easier on our side," said former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie. "And it feeds the impression this could be a very big year, and Democrats see the writing on the wall. It feels like blood in the water."

The retirements also bear significance in part because of who is stepping down. The departure of Dodd and Dorgan represents the loss of nearly 50 combined years of Senate experience.

“From a Senate caucus perspective, it’s never a good day when you lose a pair of sea legs, and Tuesday we lost two pairs,” said Democratic lobbyist Joel Johnson, a former senior Hill and Clinton administration official. “They were real forces within the caucus, both legislatively and politically. There’s no denying that’s a real loss and a disappointment.”

The announcements also mark a striking turnabout for Senate Democrats.

In a February news conference, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez predicted that the party would see no Senate retirements – and said it was Republicans who would face a difficult 2010 cycle.

“I think a cursory look at the map shows that the fear should be on the other side,” Menendez said at the time.

Less than a year later, the political world looks a lot different and the fears are plainly with the Democrats – as Menendez himself conceded in a statement Wednesday morning.

“We know that history suggests this November will be tough for Democrats,” said the campaign committee chairman. “But Republicans face six Senate retirements this cycle, and Democrats will likely wage competitive races in five of them.”

Those open seats and the wide Democratic majority in the House provide a measure of reassurance to party officials.

Yet even though it still seems unlikely that Republicans could win enough seats to recapture either chamber of Congress, the retirements are hardening the view among longtime Democrats that the party will suffer significant losses this fall.

“Democrats will still clearly be in control of the House and Senate, but we won’t have the margins that we had before,” said former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux. “The numbers will be determined by how we address the economy, the jobs issue. If we can focus in on that with more clarity then we can prevent potential losses from getting out of hand.”

But Democrats don’t just have to scramble to address the still-wheezing economy – they also must move to ensure that Dodd and Dorgan don’t set off a stampede among other endangered incumbents.

“Retirements tend to snowball,” said Democratic strategist Paul Begala, who called yesterday’s retirements “Black Tuesday.”

“Keep in mind the Republicans had five senators announce their retirement last year; one seemed to trigger the next,” said Begala. “We are still 10 months from the election, so I hope the Democrats are working hard on incumbent retention.”

In the wake of a string of House Blue Dog retirements last month, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen sought assurances from some of the members rumored to be looking to leave that they were sticking around.

And after Alabama freshman Rep. Parker Griffith switched parties, Van Hollen reached out to some of the most vulnerable House Democrats, including Reps. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.) and Chris Carney (D-Pa.), to ensure that they wouldn’t become Republicans.

As for potential retirements, veteran Reps. Vic Snyder of Arkansas and Leonard Boswell of Iowa are seen as two of the most likely endangered House Democrats to consider forgoing re-election.

Van Hollen acknowledged in an interview on ABC's "Top Line" on Wednesday that there could be a “couple more” House Democratic retirements but said there would not be a wave of departures as in the 1994 cycle.

As for the Senate, a DSCC official said that there were no other retirements on the horizon – but was quick to note that nobody expected Dorgan’s stunner.

And just as the retirements of a colleague can have a psychological impact on other older or imperiled members, such moves also send a message to donors and activists about what sort of year it’s shaping up to be.

“This cycle will be a vicious cycle for Democrats,” said consultant Dan Gerstein. “Each of these things will feed the larger perception that we’re in deep doo-doo – which will depress people more and deepen the doo-do.”

On K Street, in particular, the recent retirements could prompt lobbyists and corporate officials to hedge some of their contributions, which, with Democrats in the majority, had swung sharply away from the GOP in recent years.

Still, Democratic lobbyists say that as long as the conventional wisdom remains that their party will retain both the House and Senate, donors will continue to funnel contributions to the majority party.

And because of the clear and present political danger, lobbyists may be pressured even more to give to Democrats.

“No one is under any illusions today that this is going to be anything but a tough cycle,” said Johnson. “So people are already raising money, people are putting together real campaigns.”

Beyond Washington, other Democrats hope that the wave of retirements will wake their financial contributors up about the difficulties ahead.

“I’m hoping it will scare donors,” said a Democratic fundraiser in New York City.

Begala, though, noted the financial advantage that the party holds, which is especially glaring between the two House campaign committees. The challenge, he said, was in keeping incumbents on the ballot.

“Democrats will have the money they need,” he said. “Will they have the candidates?”


Sources: Politico