Is It Real, or Is It a Political Head Fake?

Although Republicans still appear to have the edge in winning the Senate majority, this fight could still go either way.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) questions current and former IRS employees while the testify before the Senate Finance Committee May 21, 2013 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Sept. 22, 2014, 5:52 p.m.

In the early 1970s there was a clas­sic tele­vi­sion com­mer­cial for Mem­orex, a com­pany just en­ter­ing the con­sumer mar­ket for high-qual­ity au­dio cas­settes. In the com­mer­cial, jazz great Ella Fitzger­ald would hit a high note, shat­ter­ing a wine glass. Then, they would play her back on tape, shat­ter­ing the glass again. The tagline on the ad was, “Is it live, or is it Mem­orex?” Some­times in polit­ics, we see or sense something hap­pen­ing and won­der if it is real, if it is a new trend, or if it is just a noisy event or ab­er­ra­tion. It seems that dur­ing most na­tion­al elec­tions, at some point between Labor Day and Elec­tion Day, there is a polit­ic­al head fake that takes place, something that briefly makes you won­der or starts to con­vince you that there has been a change in dir­ec­tion. Usu­ally though, things just re­vert to where they were be­fore.

Over the last couple of weeks, we’ve seen this hap­pen again. Most in­de­pend­ent ana­lysts and as­tute ob­serv­ers were giv­ing Re­pub­lic­ans the edge in the fight for the Sen­ate ma­jor­ity in the Novem­ber elec­tions, but then a few polls and the weird­ness tak­ing place in Kan­sas began to sug­gest that maybe the mo­mentum had shif­ted away from the GOP. Now things seem to have re­ver­ted back al­most to where they were a month ago. The fact is that polit­ics is rarely en­tirely con­sist­ent; events and polls from week to week can bounce things around a bit even though the gen­er­al dir­ec­tion does not change. My guess is that Re­pub­lic­ans re­main the fa­vor­ite to get the six-seat net gain they need for a ma­jor­ity in the Sen­ate. I’d still give them a 60 per­cent chance to do so, but ad­mit­tedly, there will be a half-dozen or so races that will be with­in a point or two, maybe three points, and events that have yet to oc­cur could still po­ten­tially change the out­comes. This fight could still go either way.

There are as many ways to look at the Sen­ate math as there are ob­serv­ers. Here’s my take. The three Demo­crat­ic-held seats that have seemed the most in jeop­ardy since the be­gin­ning of the cam­paign re­main very prob­lem­at­ic for the party. There is no evid­ence that the open seats in Montana, South Dakota, and West Vir­gin­ia are go­ing to do any­thing but fall in­to the GOP column. The next three most vul­ner­able seats for Demo­crats in­volve in­cum­bents in states that Mitt Rom­ney car­ried by 14 points or more:  Mark Be­gich in Alaska, Mary Landrieu in Louisi­ana, and Mark Pry­or in Arkan­sas. If—and it’s a big if—any of the three sur­vive reelec­tion, Be­gich ap­pears to be the most likely to do so. But, again, it is far from cer­tain.

If Re­pub­lic­ans cap­ture Montana, South Dakota, and West Vir­gin­ia and beat Be­gich, Landrieu, and Pry­or, they win the Sen­ate—un­less they lose one of their own vul­ner­able seats. If either Sen. Pat Roberts in Kan­sas or Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell in Ken­tucky are de­feated, or if Re­pub­lic­ans lose their open seat in Geor­gia, then win­ning the ma­jor­ity be­comes a little more dif­fi­cult. While all three of these races are very close, Mc­Con­nell looks a good bit more likely than not to hold off his chal­lenger, Sec­ret­ary of State Al­is­on Lun­der­gan Grimes. In Geor­gia, Dav­id Per­due is look­ing bet­ter against Demo­crat Michelle Nunn. It is Kan­sas, though, that is be­com­ing the GOP’s mi­graine.

If Re­pub­lic­ans lose one of their own, like say, Kan­sas, it means that they must win a purple-state race, un­seat­ing either Sens. Mark Ud­all in Col­or­ado or Kay Hagan in North Car­o­lina, or pick­ing up an open seat in Iowa or Michigan, which is a bit more blue than purple. So, if Re­pub­lic­ans can hold the line in red states, with no losses, they win the Sen­ate. But, if they lose one, they have to win the polit­ic­al equi­val­ent of a road game.

The Kan­sas situ­ation is def­in­itely weird. In­de­pend­ent can­did­ate Greg Or­man is run­ning neck and neck with Roberts. Mean­while, des­pite a state Su­preme Court de­cision, the fight con­tin­ues over wheth­er there will be a Demo­crat­ic name on the bal­lot. Re­pub­lic­ans say there has to be one, point­ing to a state law re­gard­ing va­can­cies on the bal­lot. Demo­crats say they aren’t re­quired to re­place their nom­in­ee (though one is try­ing to get onto the bal­lot, ob­vi­ously without the help of the party ap­par­at­us). Privately, one Re­pub­lic­an elec­tion-law ex­pert wondered wheth­er real­ist­ic­ally a party could be forced to name a can­did­ate. Even then, it isn’t ne­ces­sar­ily cer­tain wheth­er a Demo­crat on the bal­lot helps or hurts Or­man’s chances. The more con­ven­tion­al thought is that a Demo­crat on the bal­lot di­vides the anti-Roberts or non-Re­pub­lic­an vote. The coun­ter­vail­ing view is that the pres­ence of a Demo­crat on the bal­lot helps Or­man ap­pear to be really an in­de­pend­ent, even though most be­lieve he would sit with Demo­crats if elec­ted be­cause he seems to walk and talk like a duck (Demo­crat). However, if in­de­pend­ents and dis­gruntled Re­pub­lic­ans see him as something oth­er than a Demo­crat, they may feel more com­fort­able vot­ing for him. The back­story in all of this is the in­creas­ingly bit­ter civil war with­in the GOP between, on one side, Gov. Sam Brown­back, the hard­core con­ser­vat­ives, and Tea Party Re­pub­lic­ans, and the less ideo­lo­gic­al Re­pub­lic­an old guard on the oth­er. Add to the mix the widely held view that Roberts has taken this elec­tion for gran­ted for far too long. Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­ans have re­cently worked to re­tool his cam­paign. The ques­tion is wheth­er they did it in time.

The polit­ic­al en­vir­on­ment is so bad, the play­ing field is so tilted in fa­vor of Re­pub­lic­ans, and the midterm elec­tion elect­or­ate has star­ted to fa­vor Re­pub­lic­ans so much so that there are simply many more routes for Re­pub­lic­ans to get to 51 seats than there are for Demo­crats to keep 50. Win­ning every purple state and pick­ing off a state in en­emy red ter­rit­ory ob­vi­ously can hap­pen, but it usu­ally doesn’t with the oth­er dy­nam­ics we see in play.

What We're Following See More »
Ducey To Appoint Martha McSally To Senate
2 hours ago
Is White House Caving on Government Shutdown?
2 hours ago

"White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders seemed to endorse a potential spending deal that would include all of the remaining appropriations, including a Senate Homeland Homeland Security bill with $1.6 billion in wall-related funding. But as usual, there was a catch—President Donald Trump might insist on flexibility to use other funds already identified to get closer to his desired $5 billion."

VOTE IS 82-12
Senate Advances Criminal Justice Reform
2 hours ago
Administration Moves to Ban Bump Stocks
3 hours ago
Trump Agrees to Close Charitable Foundation
3 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.