Numbers Don’t Lie: It’s a Tough Year for Democrats

No matter how you look at it — qualitatively or quantitatively — Senate Democrats face quite a fight in November.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA, participates in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing titled "Gulf Coast Catastrophe: Assessing the Nation's Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill" on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 17, 2010. 
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
March 24, 2014, 6:15 p.m.

There has been a grow­ing sense in re­cent weeks that the odds of Re­pub­lic­ans pick­ing up a Sen­ate ma­jor­ity in Novem­ber are not only grow­ing, may well have tipped over to bet­ter than 50-50.

The num­bers, geo­graphy, and tim­ing for Sen­ate Demo­crats have been chal­len­ging from the be­gin­ning of this elec­tion cycle. They have great­er ex­pos­ure, de­fend­ing 21 seats com­pared with only 15 for the GOP. Even worse, the ex­pos­ure comes in tough places for Demo­crats, who have four seats up in states that Mitt Rom­ney car­ried by 15 per­cent­age points or more, two in states that he won by 14 points, and an­oth­er in a state Rom­ney took by 2 points.

The tim­ing is par­tic­u­larly bad in that the party’s ex­pos­ure comes dur­ing a midterm elec­tion, when the elect­or­ate is usu­ally older, whiter, and more con­ser­vat­ive than dur­ing pres­id­en­tial elec­tion years, when turnout is more di­verse. Fi­nally, the polit­ic­al en­vir­on­ment for Demo­crats is bad; the party cur­rently has a pres­id­ent with a na­tion­al job-ap­prov­al num­bers av­er­aging in the low forties, and con­sid­er­ably worse in at least half the Sen­ate battle­ground states. Plus, the Af­ford­able Care Act, his sig­na­ture le­gis­lat­ive ac­com­plish­ment, is dis­tinctly un­pop­u­lar.

All in all, it’s not a good situ­ation for Demo­crats.

Re­pub­lic­ans have helped them­selves with a strong re­cruit­ing year. The GOP ex­pan­ded the play­ing field in re­cent weeks with former Sen. Scott Brown’s de­cision to chal­lenge in­cum­bent Demo­crat Jeanne Shaheen in New Hamp­shire. The party has also traded up can­did­ates in Col­or­ado, re­pla­cing prob­lem­at­ic 2010 Sen­ate nom­in­ee Ken Buck for Rep. Cory Gard­ner.

If you had to bet today on the out­come, the odds would strongly fa­vor Re­pub­lic­ans get­ting halfway to their goal of a net gain of six seats in Demo­crat­ic open seats: GOP can­did­ates are fa­vor­ites in South Dakota, West Vir­gin­ia, and, to a slightly less­er ex­tent, Montana. Four Demo­crat­ic in­cum­bents are em­broiled in very tough races: Mark Be­gich in Alaska, Mark Pry­or in Arkan­sas, Mary Landrieu in Louisi­ana, and Kay Hagan in North Car­o­lina. All are run­ning roughly even, slightly ahead, or even be­hind their GOP rivals. The races, in our view, are ab­so­lutely in the Toss-Up column.

Con­ven­tion­al wis­dom has labeled Pry­or as the walk­ing dead, even though mul­tiple private Demo­crat­ic polls (by dif­fer­ent poll­sters) have nev­er showed him down as much as a single point. The one high-qual­ity pub­lic poll where all the de­tails are avail­able — con­duc­ted by the Demo­crat­ic polling firm of Hick­man Ana­lyt­ics for an en­ergy-in­dustry group — had Pry­or ahead of Rep. Tom Cot­ton by 3 points among all likely voters, and 2 points be­hind among def­in­ite voters; both are mar­gin-of-er­ror vari­ances. This is an ex­ample how the per­cep­tion of a race of­ten can be driv­en by sketchy polling.

After those four Demo­crat­ic Sen­ate in­cum­bents (in Alaska, Arkan­sas, Louisi­ana, and North Car­o­lina), we still have an open seat in Michigan, where two little-known can­did­ates are bat­tling in a very close race. Yes, the Iowa open seat is worth watch­ing, spe­cific­ally be­cause the odds of the con­vo­luted GOP nom­in­at­ing pro­cess pick­ing an exot­ic and po­ten­tially prob­lem­at­ic can­did­ate for the gen­er­al elec­tion are good. Demo­crats dis­pute our Toss-Up des­ig­na­tion of the race in Michigan, but cur­rent polling sug­gests that is in­deed where things stand. In the two “new races,” Col­or­ado and New Hamp­shire, one or both could end up in the Toss-Up cat­egory, though not enough num­bers have been re­leased to jus­ti­fy that in the former, and num­bers in the lat­ter cur­rently show Shaheen with a lead well bey­ond the mar­gin.

Then there is the mat­ter of the two vul­ner­able GOP seats. The con­ven­tion­al wis­dom in Ken­tucky con­tin­ues to dis­count the mag­nitude of Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell’s per­il. His poor fa­vor­ab­il­ity rat­ings in the state should dis­ab­use any­one of that no­tion, but ap­par­ently they haven’t. The per­cep­tion of his tenacity is giv­en great­er cre­dence than that the data in­dic­ate.

My good friend and com­pet­it­or Stu Rothen­berg puts the broad range of po­ten­tial out­comes at four to eight seats gained by the GOP, num­bers that make sense to me. Nar­row­ing it down a bit to a five-to-sev­en-seat gain, while ris­ki­er, is prob­ably an equally lo­gic­al con­clu­sion. Nate Sil­ver’s ter­rif­ic web­site Fiv­eThirtyEight puts the broad range of GOP vic­tory from plus one for Re­pub­lic­ans to plus 11, with a net gain of six seats the most likely. While I can quibble with some of the odds that Nate puts on in­di­vidu­al races, just as Stu and I dis­agree here and there, we are all in the same ball­park. The dis­agree­ments with Fiv­eThirtyEight are in some cases the dif­fer­ence between look­ing at things purely quant­it­at­ively, as Nate does, or a bit more sub­ject­ively as Rothen­berg and I do. Larry Sabato’s Crys­tal Ball is a little less ex­pli­cit in its weight­ing of qual­it­at­ive versus quant­it­at­ive ana­lys­is, but over­all looks to be in about the same ball­park as well.

Some people ask if there is room for a Charlie, Stu, or Larry in a world with Nate’s quant­it­at­ive ap­proach. It is a le­git­im­ate ques­tion, and I con­fess to be­ing a big fan of Sil­ver’s, even if we some­times dis­agree on the de­tails. But, as the ter­rif­ic book and movie Money­ball sug­gests, while there is not a Ma­jor League Base­ball team that does not em­ploy stat­ist­i­cians us­ing saber­met­rics, neither is there one that has fired all of its scouts. Smart teams em­ploy both.


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.